<p>The thread just struck my funny bone. Kind of looked like folks were arguing about what is success with a twist of old time hippy philosophy that having money or being the boss could not be success.</p>
<p>At the same time I think everyone would agree that if their kid were happy they would consider that success, and that different things make different folks happy.</p>
<p>Then, at the ages of our kids, our kids probably don't yet know what will make them happy. Right now, my three teenage sons would probably define success and happiness as answers to their prayer of, "Lord, don't let me die a virgin." I assume that will change in the future and they will have other factors that make them happy. So, my goal is to keep as many options open as possible for them so that when they find what makes them happy they won't have already done something to block happiness or make it harder to achieve.</p>
<p>What you end up with is parents wanting their kids to go to the tier 1 schools to keep the most options open. The original poster was pointing out that all the options for which tier 1 schools are know can be achieved without going to a tier 1 school. That lead to arguments that the options for which tier 1 schools are know are not necessarily success. A long argument between folks who probably actually agree.</p>
<p>I agree, and I agree...with the keeping options open part, in particular...This discussion is not new-- what is the "right" reason for wanting your child to go to a particular school?? Fit/prestige/money/chances of med school admission/bumpersticker/peergroup/social life/the full college experience-- this group tends to be a "fit" oriented place...and then this trickles down into "fit" in real life as well. Good thing not everyone wants to be CEO...or can or should be...</p>
<p>The Google founders went to a non-recognized school name like University of Delaware and University of Maryland and both doing Phd in Computer Science at Stanford. So this echo the following point
1) Undergraduate school does not matter
2) Do what you love(Sergey Brin studied math)
3) Success will follow(lol, lots of money in this case)</p>
<p>Hayden--no prejudice against CEOs, just not for me or my kids. </p>
<p>I understand celebrating someone for reaching tht kind of success; I still don't get what you did mean by pointing out who might be working for who--if not a dig, I'm just puzzled by its reason. So my comments refer to those kinds of remarks (echoed elsewhere) not to any feelings about CEOs. If the celebration of someone becoming one consisted of remarking on the challenge of directing a company toward success, that is one thing; if it consists of who gets to be the one worked for (your comment) or gets to fire people (subsequent comment), then I think it conveys a somewhat different subtext.</p>
<ol>
<li> The idea that one can be successful in life even if he/she doesn't attend an elite college.</li>
<li> For some people, attending the college which provide the most challenging intellectual experience (with a cohort of true peers) is the goal.</li>
</ol>
<p>I don't see how anyone can disagree with either of these. Our experience has mirrored what Norcalguy said -- "It's not impossible to succeed at a lower tier school. Just harder." My husband works for a Research & Development company where every other person seems to have a PhD from MIT. We both attended a less elite public university, where we think we received a good education -- we just want it to be better for our son. </p>
<p>Sure, we know that he is the same person wherever he goes to school -- it's just that so much learning occurs outside the classroom. And how easy is it to continue to strive when the people around you aren't as interested in real academic challenges? He's interested in the physical sciences, which aren't easy at any school. It's just that at some of his more selective options he'll meet someone else who wanted to visit Princeton mainly to take a picture of Einstein's house... Or who thinks that Brian Greene is a rock star...</p>
<p>For what it's worth, I don't see many teir 1 school alums at the helms of many corporations. I don't even see many in upper level management. They tend to go into research, teach college,work at think tanks, and a number go into professional vocations such as law, medicine, architecture,etc.</p>
<p>I was talking to an assistant dean of Columbia's School of Education and he noted that Columbia and other ivy schools to his knowledge are designed for kids to be able to be researchers. Another Dean at the University of Pennsylvania noted, "Practicality has never been the hallmark of an ivy league education."</p>
<p>This was reinforced by a professor at Univ of Penn Veterinary School who noted that Penn grads are great at being desease researchers , but he (the professor that I was talking to) would never hire them for his practice. He would hire kids that attended schools such as Iowa Veterinary School of Penn grads, which I found a bit disturbing!</p>
<p>You are so right. But many Tier 1 alums do found companies on the basis of their inventions. Often, though, they don't have the practical know how or drive to lead the company as it expands. Walter Gilbert, a Nobel Prize-winning Harvard prof founded Biogen but was eventually edged out. My H once worked for a company whose boss and founder wore a pony tail, rode the subway or his bike to work, collected art. The company expanded a bit, attracted the attention of a Texas mega corporation which bought it out. The founder was given an honorific title. Within a year, the megacorporation bit the dust.</p>
<p>Graduate programs from Tier 1 do produce alums that found companies. In high tech I know Stanford Phd/UC Berkeley/UCLA(CA) started a lot of companies that are name brand such as Yahoo, Google, Intel,Broadcom,etc...because these schools have link to the VCs but they bring in seasoned manager to manage when the company gets off the ground.
One more well known CEO that did not go to elite school, John Chambers of CISCO, he graduated from University of Indiana.
These are examples of success(I know this is debatable) in high tech(my field). I'm using these examples to illustrate the fact that an undergraduate degree from non-elite school does not mean dooms forever.</p>
<p>What is this thread about again? If it is about citing examples of CEOs who went to podunk U, countered with examples of entrepreneurs who attended Ivy league schools, last year Bloomberg conducted a study that showed University of Wisconsin (they are so proud) tied with Harvard for producing the most CEOs of S&P 500 companies. So you are both right, although UW is hardly Podunk U. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The UW System tied with Harvard University's Harvard College for first place in educating the most chief executive officers of companies included in the Standard & Poor's 500 Index, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
[quote]
For CEOs who did finish college, an MBA is the preferred graduate credential. More than a third of the 500 U.S. chief executives -- 37.5 percent -- earned their MBAs, and they were three times as likely to have gone to Harvard Business School in Boston than to any other school.
<p>NJres,
Is this survey take into account of Harvard MBA, cause I would think they produce the most CEOs. I only refer to undergraduate at this point.</p>