All Schools are Created Equally

College Majors Engineering Majors
61

<p>

</p>

<p>I actually know several. Do you? </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m quite confident that the vast majority of people who are admitted to both MIT and IIT will choose the former. Not all will do so, but the majority will. I doubt that you would disagree. Hence, what that means is that IIT must have many students who would rather be going to MIT but just didn’t get in, or didn’t even apply because they knew they wouldn’t get in. On the other hand, I doubt that many MIT students would rather be going to IIT but just didn’t get in. Given that, the MIT student population is, by definition, superior to the IIT population. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Why are there an enormous amount of international students at IIT? Seems like a simple reason to me - IIT is offering better opportunities to those international students than they would have otherwise, which for example could mean staying in their home countries. But I am quite certain that most of those international students would prefer to be at MIT than IIT. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>And I think that is precisely our point of contention. I don’t think that the education is comparable, as long as you carefully define what is meant by ‘education’, which to me includes the entire academic milieu, not merely what is taught within the formal curriculum. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>And many very intelligent students go to MIT. Compare the SAT and high school class ranks of the student bodies at MIT and IIT - which is higher? </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>So are you saying that Google, circa 2003 (which is precisely when you would want to get in, in order to cash out via the 2004 IPO) was being ridiculous? </p>

<p>For the most part, it takes a degree from an Ivy League school, or MIT, Stanford, CalTech, or Carnegie Mellon–America’s top engineering schools–even to get invited to interview. Brin and Page still keep a hand in all the hiring, from executives to administrative assistants. And to them, work experience counts far less than where you went to school, how you did on your SATs, and your grade-point average. “If you’ve been at Cisco for 20 years, they don’t want you,” says an employee.</p>

<p>[Can</a> Google Grow Up? Google is one of the best things to happen to the Net. So will its IPO, expected this spring, be a must-buy? A look inside reveals a talented company facing trouble. - December 8, 2003](<a href=“http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2003/12/08/355116/index.htm]Can”>Can Google Grow Up? Google is one of the best things to happen to the Net. So will its IPO, expected this spring, be a must-buy? A look inside reveals a talented company facing trouble. - December 8, 2003)</p>

<p>Even if you are saying that Google was being ridiculous, I think all of the pre-IPO Google engineers are laughing all the way to the bank. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Again, see above regarding the hiring policies practiced at Google. Perhaps you can explain to me why Google was being so stupid as to ignore the bulk of talent available at IIT. </p>

<p>Look, Salve, the question comes down to a matter of statistics. Sure, I agree that everyone has the ability to succeed anywhere they go - but will they? As I’ve explained before, while IIT student can succeed, many will not, and so from a statistical standpoint, the MIT brand name is a safer choice for an employer. Nor is anybody arguing that all of the smartest engineers come from MIT, but a high proportion of them do. Employers are therefore well-advised to play the odds. No company has infinite resources to perform an exhaustive recruiting search to find the perfect job candidate. They have to decide where to recruit and who to hire based on limited information. </p>

<p>The general precept at work here is the principle of branding as it relates to information economics. Brands convey information which therefore reduce search costs. For example, if I find myself in a strange city and want some high-quality coffee, I’ll probably head for Starbucks, because I recognize the brand name. Starbucks has spent millions of dollars to build a brand that conveys quality of coffee. Now, maybe there is some small coffee shop in town that actually serves better coffee than Starbucks does. But the question is, how would I know that? Should I really take that chance, as what if the coffee turns out to be terrible? Without sufficient information, I am better off by sticking to brand names. Companies know this, which is why they carefully build and manage their brand names. </p>

<p>Every organization in the world is information-constrained, as nobody has perfect information. Maybe a particular IIT grad would be the best hire in the entire world. But how would an employer know that? In particular, how would an employer know that he wouldn’t be picking one of the subpar grads? After all, every grad is going to claim to be the best hire the company can find. So how would you know? The brand name provides an additional quality check. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t have to know anything about the program to call it worse, as the employers have already done that for me. If you don’t like it, take it up with those employers. I am not telling them what to do.</p>

62

<p>^^I see where you are coming from on how MIT is marked as a high quality school and so employers would rather have the safety of that. You realize the reason I am defending IIT so much is because my two brothers go to school there… so why would I not try to defend that school. I see how my brother is after graduating there. He went to a job at ITW and was immediately seen as a remarkably intelligent individual. I’m defending IIT because I know what sort of people have come out of there. My dad also went to IIT for about two years until he had to drop out due to money issues. He is one of the most intelligent people I know when it comes to anything from cars to electric work. That is why I am defending the school. I believe it gives a true quality education that was immediately seen by local employers. I’m not trying to put down MIT, because it is indeed a magnificent school for the record it has made. I just don’t understand how someone can immediately see an MIT student and not give someone like my brother who is an IIT grad a chance. He knows just as much as any MIT kid, but that definitely is my biased opinion :slight_smile: . sakky, believe me, I know what you are talking about. I would love to go to MIT, don’t get me wrong. What about those people who can’t go to MIT because of where they live or financial trouble? Should they really be penalized simply because they go to a school that is closer? I don’t think so. IIT is a wonderful replacement for MIT and I don’t think that the people on these forums should be taking away from that. I mentioned about possibly going to IIT for school and the people on here simply said “why would you want to go there when you can go to some much better school?” That is what really made me upset. Who is to say IIT is not a good school, it just hasn’t been given the attention that I personally think it deserves.</p>

<p>sakky, I mean nothing against MIT, but I don’t like seeing people put down IIT because it is not as “famous”.</p>

63

<p>

</p>

<p>Uh, because no necessary connection exists between the price of a service and the cost of providing that service. For example, if I run a nightclub that becomes world-famous as a hotspot for meeting numerous beautiful and eligible women, I can charge a fortune to every guy who wants to enter, even though it doesn’t cost that much to run a nightclub. The club can maintain the numbers of eligible women by also not admitting every man wants to enter, and in particular, only the most handsome and eligible men. This is precisely how the most successful closed singles clubs operate. </p>

<p>The real issue has to do with network effects and coordination costs. MIT and other top schools have become the focal points around which the best students congregate. Sure, the best students might choose to congregate at an alternative location that is cheaper, but how do you make that happen. No individual student, or even a subset of students, is going to want to break away from the current congregation point to another, because he’s afraid that the other students won’t follow. Hence, the students can’t coordinate a collective move; it is safer for them to remain where they are. The network effects then tend to self-reinforce: top students attract more top students, which then attract even more top students, etc.</p>

<p>The other network effect was discussed before: the presence of top employers. Top employers attract top students, which then attract still more top employers in a two-sided reinforcing network effect. Again, the coordination problem means that neither side dares to break away for fear that the others won’t follow.</p>

64

<p>

</p>

<p>I’d say a winning idea… you get a bunch of money and beautiful women… sorry, not exactly on topic, but it just caught my attention…</p>

65

<p>“For the most part, it takes a degree from an Ivy League school, or MIT, Stanford, CalTech, or Carnegie Mellon–America’s top engineering schools–even to get invited to interview. Brin and Page still keep a hand in all the hiring, from executives to administrative assistants. And to them, work experience counts far less than where you went to school, how you did on your SATs, and your grade-point average. “If you’ve been at Cisco for 20 years, they don’t want you,” says an employee.”</p>

<p>That must have changed. They hired a lot of engineers from my company several years ago. I know an older guy that they hired several years ago - I think that he retired after working for a few years when the stock went ballistic. They’ve also bought out companies and you have less control of where people come from when you do a buyout.</p>

<p>There’s a video on Peter Spiro who was one of the upper level managers for SQL Server at Microsoft and he specifically mentions IIT grads that get their masters degrees at U Wisc and that they make great database engineers. There are specific specialty areas at universities that you’ve never heard of with top companies hiring from these schools because the specialties aren’t available elsewhere.</p>

<p>I see great engineers from a variety of schools. I also see not-so-great engineers from a variety of schools. I don’t see a correlation between how good the engineer is and the school but perhaps that’s due to a fairly rigorous screening process.</p>

66

<p>

</p>

<p>Because, like it or not, that’s the safer course of action for any employer. Employers never really know the true quality of anybody they hire; they have to operate on limited information. After all, every job candidate will claim to be a star, even if they’re not. What if they hire somebody who turns out to be terrible? Not only do they then have to waste severance money in terminating that person, but they also lose the productivity associated with not promptly filling the position with somebody who is actually capable. Given that hiring is an inherently risky endeavor due to the lack of perfect information, it behooves companies to reduce that risk by choosing schools with ‘safer’ brand names, for those brands serve as a substitute for information. </p>

<p>A darker but accurate reinterpretation of my position is that your brother is getting screwed over by all of the mediocre IIT grads who make him look (relatively) bad by association. Unfortunately, that’s how the world works. When information is imperfect, people will be judged based on the group in which they belong. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Let me tell you a story. I know a girl who wants to be a movie or TV actress. She believes that her acting skills are comparable to anybody’s, and I concur that her acting skills are indeed impressive. The problem is that she lives in a small town in the boonies and she doesn’t want to move, and if you want to be an actress, you basically need to move to Los Angeles, or perhaps New York, because that’s where the movie/TV industry is. </p>

<p>What can I say, salve? Life is unfair. The facts of life have to be accepted whether we like them or not, whether they’re just or not. In some sense, it’s not fair that she didn’t grow up in Los Angeles or New York, and is not willing to move there, for that means that her acting talent may never be discovered, and somebody of lesser talent who just happens to live in Los Angeles might have a far more successful acting career than she ever will. But what can I say? If you want to advance your career, you have to be willing to move to where your industry centers are, and if you can’t do that, or can’t afford to do that, then you have to accept that your career may suffer. That’s life. Similarly, if you want to be a Supreme Court justice, you probably have to attend a top law school and move to a major city and serve as a judge. If you want to be a successful tech entrepreneur, you probably have to move to one of the burgeoning locales for entrepreneurship such as Silicon Valley or Boston. That’s life.</p>

67

<p>

</p>

<p>Things did change in the last few years. After all, when you’re a 20,000 strong company, your selectivity inevitably drops.</p>

<p>That’s why I mentioned the pre-IPO status of Google during 2003 when that article was written. There is far less reason to join Google now, as nobody is going to become rich by doing so. The IPO is long over. Google is still a fine company, but you’re not going to become rich by joining them now. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Ah, that’s different. Obviously you can still become filthy rich by joining a startup that IPO’s or sells itself to Google or anybody else. But that’s not a ‘hiring’ process per se, but rather a result of acquisition.</p>

68

<p>It is still a hiring process. When our division was bought out, the CEO of the acquiring company reviewed each person individually. Incentives were offered for key players and it had nothing to do with where you got your degrees from.</p>

69

<p>yes, life is indeed unfair. What is ironic about how you keep mentioning Google and its first employees is that the person who spoke at the IIT graduation was the first woman to join Google. So she joined right at the beginning and is considered one of the most powerful women. What is also funny is that she talked all about how people need to surround themselves with those who are smarter than them and not those who will just praise you for your intelligence. After going over that advice, I thought it was the best anyone could give. If you just think about it, as she said, you will learn so much more. That really changed my perspective on things. Sakky, since you seem to know, how would a degree in chemical engineering from somewhere like university of Wisconsin or rose-hulman get you? I’m curious because these are also some schools I’m looking at.</p>

70

<p>I live 20 minutes from work and can work from home if I wish. I go in everyday to keep up with hallway conversations and often go to lunch for the conversation. We have very bright people, both young and old and the conversation is often interesting.</p>

<p>That said, I can pick up a lot of information and discussion on forums and blogs. In many ways, forums and blogs can bring together experts on an area better than what you can get in colleges, universities and top technology companies. You do have the problem in that some participants have to hold back for competitive reasons but that’s already understood.</p>

<p>The internet has been a big game-changer in the democratization of information.</p>

71

<p>^^agreed! Actually my brother told me almost the same thing when he saw me on CC. I guess he’ll go online for whatever reason and gets intelligent feedback.</p>

72

<p>

</p>

<p>The company had proven itself to the point that Google wanted to acquire it. </p>

<p>More importantly, nobody is arguing that Google is following its old hiring practice now. Google is a large company now and hiring practices have obviously become far looser. However, it was precisely during the pre-IPO days - or even better, during the startup days - which were precisely the best times to join Google. If you could. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Right, Marissa Mayer. And where did she go to school - was it IIT, right? Oh wait, it was Stanford. </p>

<p>In fact, the example of Mayer only reinforces the general point which is that if you want to maximize your chances of progressing your career, you have to locate yourself where the action is. Not just Mayer, but many (probably most) of Google’s early employees were old Stanford buddies of Sergey and Larry. That’s how startup hiring works. Let’s face it - when your company is comprised of just 2 guys in a college basement somewhere, you don’t have the resources to conduct an exhaustive nation-wide talent search. You inevitably just end up hiring within your social network, because that’s all you can do. In some sense, that’s not “fair”, as perhaps some other woman - perhaps from IIT - was actually more qualified than Mayer. But she wasn’t within Sergey and Larry’s social network, so they never had the chance to know about her. </p>

<p>Similarly, perhaps it’s not “fair” that untalented ingenues who just happen to be in Los Angeles may be discovered for acting roles and eventually become movie stars while a more talented actress who’s located in the boonies won’t be discovered. To provide a bluntly honest example, Jessica Alba lacks acting talent and, while beautiful, is probably not as beautiful as some other aspiring actresses. But she grew up in the Los Angeles area, so she had opportunities to enter the industry that people in other locales don’t have. You have to be willing to move to where the action is, as that’s how the game is played. Recall the old saying: 90% of success is just showing up. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Which only serves to reinforce the value of top schools in providing a stimulating intellectual environment within the student culture. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes, they can. But the real question is, will people take advantage of it? You still have to choose to engage in the various conduits of information that the Internet can provide, and if you choose not to do so, nobody can require that you do so. An immersive environment such as a college campus or tech firm can serve as a psychological forcing mechanism to require you to engage, and some people need that. Just like the guy I had mentioned previously would not quit smoking although he certainly could have. He had to be forced to do so by having his girlfriend throw away all of his cigs and withhold certain girlfriend ‘privileges’ if he bought more. He freely admits that that was a brilliant decision on her part, for it was the only way he was ever going to quit.</p>

73

<p>“But the real question is, will people take advantage of it? You still have to choose to engage in the various conduits of information that the Internet can provide, and if you choose not to do so, nobody can require that you do so.”</p>

<p>I think that most undergraduates don’t take advantage of what is freely out there as there are other distractions in college life and it helps to have someone that can show you the way or answer questions that are obvious to experts but, perhaps cryptic for undergraduates.</p>

<p>As I mentioned before, though, mom or dad or other connections can be great equalizers. A coop can be as well.</p>

<p>“In fact, the example of Mayer only reinforces the general point which is that if you want to maximize your chances of progressing your career, you have to locate yourself where the action is.”</p>

<p>I think that this is less true in our modern, interconnected world. Certainly the example of the late Jim Gray provides a good example. I’ve worked in distributed teams since the mid-1980s and there are certainly advantages as well as disadvantages to this approach in working. It works better for larger companies with global operations as the marginal cost of housing and administration are small.</p>

74

<p>

</p>

<p>Actually, I don’t know that it’s clear whether location is becoming less important as the number of communications channels proliferate. Some research has indicated that facetime has actually become more important as a means to break through the tsunami of information that engulfs us every day. I have also noted that regional locales are just as predominant and specialized in their value-added activities as ever: Silicon Valley for tech entrepreneurship and venture financing, NYC and London for finance, Los Angeles for entertainment, and Boston for pure academia (with some tech and finance thrown in), and the information revolution doesn’t seem to be changing this fact. Granted, certain non-core activities can and have been shifted to other regions of the world due to improved communications technology and distributed teams - many Silicon Valley engineering, R&D, and manufacturing centers have been moved elsewhere, especially to Asia, and much of the actual shooting of the film industry now occurs outside of California, mostly for tax purposes. But the core activity of tech business startup creation, leadership, and especially VC financing still predominantly occurs in Silicon Valley, and the actual film production activity - that is, the scriptwriting, cast/crew selection, choreography, arrangement for distribution and marketing, and the securing of project finance to pay for it all is predominantly performed in Los Angeles. None of these activities seem to be shifting away from their current central locales.</p>

75

<br>

<br>

<p>Perhaps you should have a look at some of the videos of Google engineers
describing their internal use of Google video chat.</p>

<p>In general, you don’t have to communicate a tsunami of information among
the rest of your group. If you do, there are other mechanisms for doing
that that are far more efficient than in-person meetings.</p>

<br>

<br>

<p>We had a discussion on hedge funds and the relative ease of creating a
hedge fund. Anywhere. A friend worked in one of these and they had six
employees. Outsourced technology took care of everything else. They were
located in a little place outside of Boston. But it could have just as
easily been in Miami.</p>

<p>Small tech companies are built wherever it’s convenient for the
founders and they get bought out by the bigger companies but they
still run their operations from wherever they were. You can wind up
with a large and focused company while the work is actually done
elsewhere. We can look at Berkshire Hathaway which is quite a large
and successful company. One could assume that Omaha is the center of
all the action but their approach is minimal corporate overhead while
just letting their businesses run themselves - they buy management
too.</p>

<br>

<br>

<p>I think that I’d prefer to see employee counts across the world.</p>

<p>And at least Microsoft makes for a nice counter-example.</p>

76

<p>sakky, out of genuine curiosity, what college do you attend?</p>

77

<p>

</p>

<p>Uh, perhaps you should noodle on why Google was founded in Palo Alto, not elsewhere, and why exactly so many tech startups are founded around the Palo Alto/Menlo Park region.</p>

<p>That’s exactly what I’m talking about. Nobody is disputing that large technology firms - which Google certainly is now - can operate with a considerable degree of distribution. The question is why then is the act of starting that technology firm in the first place predominantly seem to happen in only certain regions of the world. Why have there been so few - arguably zero - major tech firms founded in the Midwest in the last few decades? </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Yet you have to communicate a tsunami of information when you’re deciding whether to even form a group in the first place, and especially when that group is the company itself. Let’s face it - Google would never have been born if Sergey had never met Larry on the Stanford campus. Sergey wouldn’t have been able to meet Larry through some video chat or other communication technology for the simple reason that Sergey didn’t even know who Larry was. It was only through spontaneous interaction that those two got to know each other, became fast friends, and then decided to launch a company together. I find it highly doubtful that communications technology will change that anytime soon. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I think you just provided strong evidence in my favor. It could have been just as easily been in Miami - so why wasn’t it? Instead, it was near Boston, which is a major finance center in the world, and they never moved. Why? Miami is cheaper than Boston, so why do they stay? </p>

<p>More importantly, if hedge funds really can be founded anywhere, then why aren’t they? Why don’t we find a proliferation of hedge funds in rural Mississippi where rent is cheap? Why instead do they seem to always cluster in some of the most expensive real estate in the world, such as downtown Manhattan or Greenwich Connecticut (or Boston for that matter)? Are they all just stupidly throwing money away? {Furthermore, as an investor, why would I want to provide capital to a hedge fund that stupidly throws money away?} </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Wrong. They are founded wherever the entrepreneurial infrastructure is available. Many Silicon Valley startup founders are not actually from Silicon Valley. Mark Zuckerberg is from the Northeast. Dropping out of Harvard and moving to Palo Alto to start Facebook was clearly a highly inconvenient choice for him. {To be clear, Facebook existed as Zuckerberg’s technology project run out of his dorm room for a few months, but it did not exist as an incorporated company until he moved to Palo Alto.} Numerous other budding entrepreneurs move to Silicon Valley before they launch their company. In fact, essayist and former entrepreneur Paul Graham actually recommends that all tech entrepreneurs do so if they can.</p>

<p>Note, I can understand the intrinsic appeal of moving to San Francisco, as that is one of the most interesting cities in the country. But Silicon Valley is, frankly, dreadfully soul-crushing suburban sprawl, and is just as expensive as SF to boot. I rather doubt that anybody really wants to move there if they don’t feel that doing so offers an important advantage. But move there they do in droves. </p>

<p>*It might seem that if startups get cheap to start, it will mean the end of startup hubs like Silicon Valley. If all you need to start a startup is rent money, you should be able to do it anywhere.</p>

<p>This is kind of true and kind of false. It’s true that you can now start a startup anywhere. But you have to do more with a startup than just start it. You have to make it succeed. And that is more likely to happen in a startup hub.</p>

<p>I’ve thought a lot about this question, and it seems to me the increasing cheapness of web startups will if anything increase the importance of startup hubs. The value of startup hubs, like centers for any kind of business, lies in something very old-fashioned: face to face meetings. No technology in the immediate future will replace walking down University Ave and running into a friend who tells you how to fix a bug that’s been bothering you all weekend, or visiting a friend’s startup down the street and ending up in a conversation with one of their investors.</p>

<p>The question of whether to be in a startup hub is like the question of whether to take outside investment. The question is not whether you need it, but whether it brings any advantage at all. Because anything that brings an advantage will give your competitors an advantage over you if they do it and you don’t. So if you hear someone saying “we don’t need to be in Silicon Valley,” that use of the word “need” is a sign they’re not even thinking about the question right*</p>

<p>[The</a> Future of Web Startups](<a href=“http://www.paulgraham.com/webstartups.html]The”>The Future of Web Startups)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>And once again you’re confusing the issue. Nobody is denying that large tech firms can relocate to wherever they want. The question is, where is the entrepreneurial startup activity occurring? Again, where are all of the powerful tech startups being founded in the Midwest? </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Employee counts is irrelevant to this discussion. We are talking about startup creation. After the startup is created and grown, it can run plenty of distributed operations. Yet it is frankly undeniable that the bulk of the entrepreneurial action only occurs in certain parts of the world. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Does it? I think Microsoft only demonstrates the power of yet another startup tech cluster around Seattle. {Although, granted, if Microsoft hadn’t moved, there would most likely be a startup cluster around Albuquerque.} </p>

<p>The general point is that economic activities of any type tend to agglomerate around certain focal points. Why were almost all of the major auto firms in US history founded around Michigan rather than scattered throughout the country? Why exactly is Big Pharma so concentrated within a small strip of land on the Eastern seaboard between NYC and Philadelphia? Why are major film projects almost always conceived and produced (although perhaps not shot) in Los Angeles? </p>

<p>As I mentioned before, the girl I know who wants to be a movie actress will probably have to move to Los Angeles, despite the inconvenience that presents to her. Group communications technology isn’t going to help her because she’s not yet a member of a ‘group’: she has to be cast in a role in the first place. She needs to be in the geographic position to respond to audition opportunities immediately. More importantly, she needs to put herself in a position to know about auditions in the first place, which means that she has to attend the parties and social events where she can obtain information through word of mouth that such-and-such producer may be looking for somebody to fill a particular role. </p>

<p>To repeat, one should never discount the tremendous advantages of being where the action is of whatever industry you choose to enter. 90% of success is simply showing up. Aspiring actors and entertainers move to Los Angeles every day, sure they’re not just being stupid. Surely we can agree that if Brad Pitt had just stayed in Missouri, he wouldn’t be a millionaire superstar today, as he himself pointed out:</p>

<p>…Missouri wasn’t where movies were made. Then it hit me: If they didn’t come to me, I’d go to them</p>

<p>[Interview</a> With Brad Pitt | Parade.com](<a href=“http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2007/edition_10-07-2007/Brad_Pitt]Interview”>http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2007/edition_10-07-2007/Brad_Pitt)</p>

78

<br>


<br>

<p>There are a lot of startups there but there are a lot of startups
around the country too. A lot of them also fail.</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>Google isn't the only technology company around. Where did Michael
Dell go to school?</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>I used the example of Boston because I live a state away. In the
discussion, we actually talked about hedge funds in Miami where the
husband of one of the CC members has his company.</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>If you were a hedge fund manager, would you want to live in Mississippi?</p>

<p>Do you have kids? Do you have aunts, uncles and other relatives?</p>

<p>If the average employees generates a high level of profits, then you
don't have to worry about living costs. You can place the company
whereever you want to. When you get older, you may prefer a warmer
climate and decide to move to Florida. The issue of costs arises when
you have a business with lower margins.</p>

<p>Some of the larger banks have tried to offshore financial analysis
operations to reduce costs. Good luck with that.</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>So you are saying that all tech companies are built where there is
infrastructure available? I could easily provide counterexamples.
DeLorme is a good example of that. It is literally out in the middle
of nowhere.</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>People like to drive Hummers too. I think that's a soul-crushing
car to drive but hey, there are people that like to drive them.</p>

<p>I think that New York City is a nice place to visit too but I wouldn't
want to live there. But I do know people that love living there. Same
deal with Boston and Cambridge.</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>Berkshire Hathaway moved to Omaha recently? That's a new one on me.
I thought the question was: do you have to live in one of these hubs
to have a successful career.</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>You are talking about startup creation. I'm talking about careers and
technology companies. Your main premise is that you have to go to MIT
or Stanford and not IIT because of the geographical advantages. I'm
saying that this is not true.</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>Redmond was a big technology center before Microsoft moved there?</p>

<p>Where does Intel build their plants? Why did AMD build an important
plant in Dresden? Why are they now building a plant in upstate NY?
Which Intel R&D facilities and plants save Intel from AMD's onslaught?
Those near Silicon Valley? Those near Boston?</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>Toronto seems to have done quite well in pulling in networks to do
television shows. Economics do apparently play a part in production
to the point where production can be outside LA.</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>I don't discount the advantages of business clusters but there are
many in high-tech that would like the benefits of living in areas that
are safe, fairly inexpensive, with access to beaches, mountains,
forests, with good educational systems and where taxes are low. Many
of the aspects of geography that are good for raising families. Places
where a lot of businesses are concentrated usually lack many of those
characterisitics.</p>

<p>Kids out of college don't care about these. Until they marry and have
kids.</p>

79

<br>

<br>

<p>Garmin International - founded in Olathe, KS in 1989, NASDAQ 100 company. It might be an interesting exercise to go through the NASDAQ 100 and some of the other indexes to see if there are others. I just happened to remember Garmin because I’ve had an iQue 3600 since 2003.</p>

80

<p>Broadcom was founded in Los Angeles in 1992.</p>