<br>
<blockquote> <p>If you go to an ivy, you will make over 100,000 dollars per year>></p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Really? Where did this statistic come from. I know plenty of folks who did NOT go to Ivies who earn well in excess of $100,000 per year. Many are recent grads of schools that are NOT part of the Ivy league.</p>
<p>^I was thinking only $100,000.:)</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>If you go to an ivy, you will make over 100,000 dollars per year>></p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Gee, thanks for the reassurance! Here we have been worried that S's totally impractical degree would lead him straight to starvation lane! Can someone point us to jobs in topology that earn over $100,000? Truth to tell, I think S would be very happy with a job that earned "only" $100,000. $50,000 would do also. Or even less. And, since I'm at it, my H, with his Ivy Ph.D, would also be happy to be earning "only" $100,000.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>and a Santa Clara University grad keeps the books.>></p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Gee...I kind of liked this part...DD will someday be a Santa Clara University grad (we hope):)</p>
<p>^Santa Clara is good for engineering and law as well.</p>
<p>I just have to comment about the $50000/$100,000 dichotomy.</p>
<p>At my last place of employment, here are some of the colleges from which those with $100,000 salaries graduated:</p>
<p>Wayne State University
University of Michigan
Iowa State
University of Wisconsin
Penn State
Oklahoma State
Ohio State</p>
<p>... and I could go on. Not an ivy league degree in sight.....</p>
<p>
[quote]
I did a little sweep through the founders of the following Silicon Valley institutions, which are (along with Apple and Oracle) pillars of the scene there: Sun Microsystems, Hewlett Packard, Cisco Systems, Google, Kleiner Perkins & Caulfield. With two exceptions (out of 14 people total), all of the founders either had graduate degrees from Stanford or MBAs from Harvard. Many (not most) had Ivy League, MIT, or Stanford undergraduate degrees. The exceptions were Bill Joy (Michigan/Berkeley) and Gene Kleiner (RPI).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You also picked companies almost exclusively that were founded AT Stanford:</p>
<p>Companies:</p>
<p>Apple wasn't founded by Stanford folks. </p>
<p>Wozniak, co-founder of Apple, was a Berkeley guy. Jobs went to Reed and dropped out. You picked four companies that were directly founded at Stanford: Cisco, SUN and Google grew up DIRECTLY out of Stanford, and HP may as well have. </p>
<p>If you case a slightly wider net, it gets more mixed: Intel Co-founders Moore: Berkeley, CalTech and Noyce: Grinnell, MIT. </p>
<p>Oracle: University of Illinois at Champagne-Urbana features prominently.</p>
<p>On the company side, it's certainly a mixed bag and Harvard isn't in the mix nearly as much as your post implies.</p>
<p>On the VC side, Harvard and Stanford MBAs seem to have a big lock. Then, following the rest of the MBA programs have some -- Wharton, Haas/Berkeley, Tuck, etc.</p>
<p>Here's my favorite. CEO of EBay - Meg Whitman, Princeton. BUT came in as seasoned businessperson. CEO of Google- Eric Schmidt, Princeton. Came in as a tecchie-turned CEO that the Googlers can stomach. CEO of Amazon - Jeff Bezos, Princeton. Came in as founder. CEO of Yahoo, was Terry Sempel, from Long Island State. However, he got booted out:(. So now it's Jerry Yang, oops, Stanford. Susan Decker though, who really runs the place, is from Tufts undergraduate.</p>
<p>But this is a small sample. At one point for work I had to read the management team pages of hundreds of Silicon Valley websites. The Ivy League is by no means overrepresented.</p>
<p>The technical people do come as teams, formed frequently in grad or undergraduate, i.e. Facebook etc. But the management can really come from anywhere. The major names however are still largely founder-led.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The school I attend has a very selective pre-med program. They are just as bright and talented as Ivy students. However, they will typically earn far less over their lifetime than a student from a top medical program. Sad, but true.
[/quote]
Complete nonsense. A physician's salary is largely a function of the medical specialty they choose, not the school they graduated from. In fact, the converse may be true, as "top medical program" grads often end up in academia or public health.</p>
<p>BedHead: I was looking at the "nobility" of Silicon Valley. I didn't include Apple or Oracle because they had already been discussed; I should have included Intel, too (and maybe Fairchild, although several of its founders would already be covered in the other companies), I just forgot. </p>
<p>My point was that it's a little silly to suggest that state universities are more important there than Stanford or Harvard. Silicon Valley as we know it was created by people from those schools, and to a lesser extent Berkeley, MIT, and Cal Tech -- all elite universities. But: grad students, not undergrad.</p>
<p>First, it is not surprising that graduates from the most selective colleges and universities have high profile and/or high salary jobs in disproportionate numbers because these colleges are blessed with the best student bodies.</p>
<p>It is also futile to toss about anecdotal evidence to support any argumentative position on the matter because someone else will have a counter anecdote.</p>
<p>The only valid academic study addressing the OP article is the Kreuger and Dale study which found that the major factor in post graduate success is the talents/abilities of the individual student and not the college attended.</p>
<p>A vast majority of HYP graduates are both very talented and have received a wonderful education which virtually guarantees post graduate success if this is what they strive for. At less selective colleges, a proportionate fewer number will be in this category depending on the typical composition of the student body. And then there are those wonderful outliers who flounder in the classroom but go on to great success in their adult lives. And there are quite a few of those in terms of sheer numbers.</p>
<p>Look, I work here. I was at a dot.com. I've worked at one of the majors you are mentioning here.</p>
<p>The smartest people from all over the world have come to Silicon Valley. Just like they do to Wall Street. If you are technical or an entrepreneur, still, it doesn't get any better than here. Schools do not get you here. What happens is that super smart technical people frequently get their graduate degrees at the top institutions. Then, because they are still smart, and they have met other smarties, they get an idea and want to start a company and plus they hate having bosses.</p>
<p>But the schools don't make them. They are at the schools because of who they are.</p>
<p>Then the business people, it's way more about how much risk and independence you want than your school. </p>
<p>You have to remember, for the past 30 years we have been the pot of gold machine. It drew the smarties here.</p>
<p>Not me, by the way, I was just here for family....</p>
<p>Agree with alumother. I found a lot people from state school work at Silicon Valley: University of Michigan, Berkeley, UIUC, and UT.
People also come from all over the world to work at Silicon Valley. I have met a lot of people from different countries such as Scandinavia, France, Sweden, Scottland, Ireland, Malasia, Singapore, Thailand(besides the majority of people from China, Taiwan, India, Pakistan).</p>
<p>Alumother: Of course. That's what universities are about.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My point was that it's a little silly to suggest that state universities are more important there than Stanford or Harvard. Silicon Valley as we know it was created by people from those schools, and to a lesser extent Berkeley, MIT, and Cal Tech -- all elite universities. But: grad students, not undergrad.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, that is true, your final statement. Often, or perhaps mostly grad students in most cases. Google's founders were grad students at Stanford. SUN same, one Berkeley. Cisco's founders not students but professors at Stanford. Google CEO Berkeley grad student. Current Intel CEO Berkeley grad student. Former Intel CEO (Andrew Grove) Berkeley grad student. Maybe the point of this column should be to get into a school that can get you admission to one of these schools as a grad student. And in that case, the swath is certainly larger than just the few schools that you highlighted. Google's founders both went undergrad to state schools, for instance.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Such findings might relieve stressed-out high school seniors in the midst of college-application season. Angst is running especially high as they race to beat the University of California's application deadline at midnight Friday.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There seems to be a recent trend of making sure that Ivy League Universities are "put into place," and that there reputation is brought back down to size. But, what is the point of nonsensical studies like these? First, as many posters have mentioned, there are only eight Ivy League Universities. And there are many "top" state public schools (in fact, I received college brochures from over fifty public schools that claimed to be "top" in something or another). Again, is the point of this to relieve college students? Unlikely. Ivy League Universities are not much less selective than honors programs at public universities. Are these articles to allay the students who didn't get into Ivies but got into top public universities? Unlikely too, because, as I said earlier, the kids who got into top publics most probably could have gotten into Ivies.</p>
<p>My take is that this is to make many public university kids feel better about their choice, especially since there is no clear standard on which public university is a top university, which is a prestigious university, etc. The Ivy League is set in stone (eight private institutions which are part of the athletic conference). The "top" publics are not.</p>
<p>I leave readers with the question: what is the point of studies like these which misrepresent statistics to prove a point? What is the point...of the point?</p>
<p>"The school I attend has a very selective pre-med program. They are just as bright and talented as Ivy students. However, they will typically earn far less over their lifetime than a student from a top medical program. Sad, but true."</p>
<p>My DH and I both went to medical school. He started at Columbia ( also Einstein and USC), and I went to Howard (also Einstein and UCLA). Who wants to guess lifetime income ( or at least potential). ? Who wants to guess whose still paying loans ( almost 20 years!!!)?</p>
<p>"Agree with alumother. I found a lot people from state school work at Silicon Valley: University of Michigan, Berkeley, UIUC, and UT."</p>
<p>Michigan, UIUC, Berkeley are top 5 in engineering across the board, big surprise that they're represented well in Silicon Valley. Considering the number of public schools and the number of Ivies, its safe to say that ivies are over-represented. Whether that's because they're naturally smart or because of the school they went to is irrelevant because everyone knows the best thing about an Ivy League education are the doors that are opened</p>
<p>I don't think Ivies make any difference to Silicon Valley. It may make a difference in New York, New England but not in Silicon Valley.</p>
<p>If you work in high tech in Silicon Valley, you likely make over $100,000 no matter which school you attended. Your school may make a difference when searching for your first job (good tech schools are favored), but after that nobody here cares (speaking as a sometime tech hiring manager).</p>