<p>Who are the famous MIT alumnus of Engineering, Natural Sciences and Math programs, who became successful in business world ?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Gates is definitely a brilliant man, but his engineering skills are debatable.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think anybody is trying to say that Gates is the greatest engineer of all time.</p>
<p>What makes him impressive is that he knows far more about engineering, and specifically about software coding, than most tech CEO's do. Say what you will about his coding deficiencies, but at least he was there in the trenches, getting into the weeds, dealing with all the hairiness of writing good code. Very few other CEO's of tech companies can say the same thing. Most are just businessmen and salesmen. For example, John Chambers of Cisco is not an engineer. Neither is Sam Palmisano of IBM. Mark Hurd of HP. Scott McNealy of Sun. Terry Semel of Yahoo. Meg Whitman of Ebay. Larry Probst of Electronic Arts. </p>
<p>Even those CEO's who do have substantial software backgrounds were probably not ever as good as Bill Gates was at it. For example, while Steve Jobs of Apple and Larry Ellison of Oracle were former coders, I suspect that Bill Gates was a better one. Obviously we can never prove that, but I believe it is true. </p>
<p>About the only major tech company that I can think of whose CEO is certainly a better coder than Gates was is Google, with Dr. Eric Schmidt, PhD in computer science from UCBerkeley, and lead developer of the Java programming language while at Sun. </p>
<p>But the point is, people who are both very good at software and in running large tech companies are few and far between. Gates may not be the greatest at software, but he's clearly a lot better than most other CEO's of major tech companies are.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Who are the famous MIT alumnus of Engineering, Natural Sciences and Math programs, who became successful in business world ?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>William Hewlett, who is the H in HP, got his MS in EECS from MIT.</p>
<p>Ken Olsen, founder of the former computer giant DEC (which is now part of HP) got his bachelor's and MS in EECS from MIT.</p>
<p>Robert Noyce, co-founder and the first CEO of Intel, got his PhD in physics from MIT.</p>
<p>John Thain, the current CEO of the New York Stock Exchange, got his bachelors degree in EECS from MIT. </p>
<p>Andrew Viterbi, who is the co-founder of the mobile phone giant Qualcomm, got his bachelor's and master's in electrical engineering.</p>
<p>Tom Perkins, of arguably the most prestigious venture capital firm in the world, Kleiner Perkins Caulfield and Byers, got his bachelor's in EECS from MIT. </p>
<p>Amar Bose, founder of the Bose Corporation (audio equipment), got his PhD in EE from MIT. </p>
<p>Vannaver Bush, who cofounded the defense-industry giant Raytheon, got his engineering doctorate at MIT.</p>
<p>I could go on and on, as there are many other companies on the list. But I think the point is clear.<br>
James McDonnell, cofounder of the aerospace company McDonnell & Douglas (now part of Boeing), got his master's degree in aerospace engineering from MIT.</p>
<p>Robert Swanson, cofounder of Genentech, holds a bachelor's degree in chemistry from MIT (as well as a master's degree in management from the MIT Sloan School). </p>
<p>Cecil Green, co-founder of Texas Instruments, got his bachelor's and master's in EE from MIT.</p>
<p>According to Wikipedia.com, Vannevar Bush received Doctor of Engineering degree from Harvard University and MIT. How is that possible ?</p>
<p>I'm sure if you obsess about it a little more, you'll get it.</p>
<p>I believe it was a joint degree. Back in the old days, MIT and Harvard used to offer lots of joint degree programs. They still do, especially in the Health Sciences and Technology program which is run jointly. </p>
<p>However, I'll say this. According to the MIT alumni database, Vannevar Bush received an EGD degree (a Doctor of Engineering degree) in EECS (course 6) from MIT in 1916. But he does not show up in the Harvard alumni database at all. So is he really a Harvard alumni? I guess it depends on how you define the word "alumni"?</p>
<p>According to wikipedia.com, Harvard finished first place 24 times( as of 2004) and MIT finished first place 5 times in William Lowell Putnam Mathematics Competition. I think MIT math & applied math department is about 5 times bigger than that of Harvard. and almost everyone at MIT is doing some kind of applied math( enginnering, physical sciences etc..)</p>
<p>Harvard Math is admitting about only 7 math PhDs per year and MIT is admitting about 30 PhDs per year. </p>
<p>I thought Harvard Math is like a 'sidkick' department at Harvard, but they are doing much better than MIT math people..</p>
<p>I also heard that most of the Top performers of american math competitions usually choose to attend Harvard instead of MIT or other schools.</p>
<p>Is this true ? </p>
<p>How come Math students at Liberal Arts school are doing much better than those at Science & Technology school in Putnam Math competitions ?</p>
<p>Your initial assumption is flawed. Harvard math is not a 'sidekick' department by any means.</p>
<p>According to USNews, Harvard is tied for the #2 ranked graduate math department in the country (MIT is #1). According to the 1995 NRC ranking, Harvard was ranked 4th with a 4.90 score, vs. MIT ranked 3rd with a 4.92 score. A 0.02 difference in score is meaningless. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.stat.tamu.edu/%7Ejnewton/nrc_rankings/area31.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.stat.tamu.edu/~jnewton/nrc_rankings/area31.html</a>
<a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/phdsci/premium/mat.php%5B/url%5D">http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/phdsci/premium/mat.php</a></p>
<p>Whether you see Harvard as having the 2nd or the 4th strongest graduate math department, it is hardly a 'sidekick' department. How can you have such a strong ranking and be a 'sidekick'? </p>
<p>
[quote]
I think MIT math & applied math department is about 5 times bigger than that of Harvard. and almost everyone at MIT is doing some kind of applied math( enginnering, physical sciences etc..)</p>
<p>Harvard Math is admitting about only 7 math PhDs per year and MIT is admitting about 30 PhDs per year.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I also fail to see what this has to do with the Putnam competition, which is available only to undergrads. What does the size of the department or the number of graduate students have anything to do with a competition that is open only to undergrads? </p>
<p>Look, the truth is that the Harvard math program is probably very good for the kinds of things that are tested in the Putnam. Heck, I see that the Harvard math department has a specific website devoted to the Putnam. The MIT math department does not seem to focus on Putnam. Nevertheless, the MIT department is still ranked (slightly) higher than the Harvard math department in the 2 most respected graduate rankings (NRC and USNews).</p>
<p>Secondly, liberal arts includes sciences. If you look at the definition of 'liberal arts', you will see that mathematics (arithmetic and geometry) was part of the liberal arts. So it makes perfect sense for a liberal arts school like Harvard to be extremely good at mathematics. This is not strange at all, and certainly math is no 'sidekick' department. </p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts</a></p>
<p>In fact, what would be weird is for a liberal arts school to NOT have a strong mathematics program. If you're not strong in math, then you're not really a balanced liberal arts school.</p>
<p>It is interesting. You can point to top graduates of both schools, but the last time that I looked at the statistics (which admittedly was a few years ago) it was clear that both on a percentage basis and in absolute terms, the number of Harvard alum that reach the top of their profession is appreciably higher than at MIT. It is also true that the MEDIAN income of MIT grads comes in appreciably higher than the equivalent at Harvard.</p>
<p>I graduated from MIT, I had a lot of friends at Harvard. I went to a bunch of Harvard parties, I got to know it moderately well. I personally perferred MIT. Anecdotally, I seemed to have better access to senior faculty than was available to my friends at Harvard (for example, one of MIT's Nobel Laureates is teaching two sections of freshman physics - that seemed to be much less likely to occur at Harvard). I found more people on the MIT campus who thought the way I did, and a much lower level of pretention. But everyone is different. You may prefer Harvard, and heck, good luck to you there.</p>
<p>At the level of these schools, there is really no such thing as one school being BETTER than the other. This is the basis of the admissions counsellors talking so long and often about the importance of MATCH. There will be some students who are a better match for Harvard and will prosper and thrive there, others who are a better match for MIT. In the rare case that an applicant has been accepted at both schools and has a free choice, it is a huge mistake to sit down and to rationally pick the BETTER school. There isn't such a thing. Rather visit both campuses (which are all of fifteen minutes apart), talk to people, and figure out where you would be happier.</p>
<p>-Mikalye</p>
<p>PS: And if you really want to be CEO of a tech company, where you did your undergraduate degree does not matter at all. What matters is where you did your MBA.</p>
<p>Putnam Math competition is one of the most prestigious math competition at undergraduate level in US. Harvard has a specific web site devoted to the Putnam, because Harvard has been a top winner most of the time: they want to show off. </p>
<p>Maybe MIT math department does not focus on Punam because they are behind Harvard team most of the time. </p>
<p>I also know that the top winners of high school math competition in US usually choose to attend Harvard math department and I guess that is why Harvard has been doing extremely well in that competition.</p>
<p>mdx49, are you considering attending MIT? Are you evaluating whether to attend Harvard instead? I'm curious as to the point of your thread here, and the posts you keep adding that continue to disparage or cast doubt on MIT in some way. You've received some very thoughtful replies from a number of people here, I hope they've been helpful in your decisions.</p>
<p>It sounds like he's trying to justify choosing Harvard over MIT.</p>
<p>Anyways, mdx, I hope those Putnam math competition winners and those famous alumni keep you warm during those cold lonely Boston winters.</p>
<p>Mdx49, nobody is denying that the Harvard math program is extremely strong. Nobody can fault you for going to Harvard to study math. </p>
<p>However, let's not deny that the MIT math program is also extremely strong. After all the rankings indicate that the MIT graduate math program is ranked (slightly) higher than Harvard's is. And yes, MIT touts this fact. So just like you say that MIT does not tout the Putnam because MIT is behind Harvard when it comes to the Putnam, I could similarly say that Harvard does not tout the NRC or the USNEws graduate rankings for math departments because Harvard is behind MIT. So the same mentality applies.</p>
<p>Harvard has a tiny permanent math faculty that is of extremely high quality. (The size probably accounts for the rankings.) MIT has a much larger faculty that is also very good. Each department certainly has its own "feel" and you should figure out what that is when you visit and whether it suits you.</p>
<p>Harvard's graduate school in math is certainly harder to get into than MIT's, for what it's worth.</p>
<p>If you have the privilege of choosing between MIT and Harvard, I can say quite confidently I think the decision will have very little impact on your life (and ensuing success in it).</p>
<p>And one more thing: anyone that says Bill Gates isn't very skilled as a software engineer is arrogant beyond belief. Windows didn't end up with a 90+% market share because its founder (and original writer) couldn't program.</p>
<p>Well, actually, live, it wouldn't be unprecedented. There are some examples of fantastically successful computer companies founded and led by people who had minimal engineering knowledge. </p>
<p>For example, consider IBM. Most people today don't realize just how fantastically dominant IBM used to be in the industry. But as some pundits put it, in the 1960's and 1970's, IBM wasn't just the flagship of the US computer industry, it was the whole fleet. Basically, IBM at that time dominated absolutely every single piece of the computer industry. Hardware, software, applications, networking equipment, computer services, peripherals, printers, etc. etc. You name it, IBM dominated it. IBM did everything. IBM invented the disk drive. It made its own microprocessors. It made its own memory. It made its own motherboards. It pieced them all together into its systems (its mainframes). In fact, IBM invented the idea of a 'compatible computer system' (as opposed to individual custom-made computers that were not compatible with any other computer in the world). It wrote the operating system for those mainframes. It wrote application software to sit on top of the operating system. It made networking equipment to connect the mainframes to terminals. It made those terminals. In short, IBM used to be far more dominant than Microsoft ever was, and probably ever will be. </p>
<p>Yet the fact is, IBM's early leaders were not engineers. The legendary Tom Watson Sr, who took over the Computer-Tabulating-Recording company, and then later changed its name to IBM, was not an engineer. He was a salesman. His son, the equally legendary Tom Watson Jr., who took over IBM from his father, was also a salesman, not an engineer. (Granted, the CTR company was founded by a mechanical engineering whiz, but it sold tabulating machines, not computers at the time that it was taken over by Watson Sr.) </p>
<p>The point is, it's not unprecedented for a computer company to achieve great success while being led by a person who is not a computer whiz. I doubt that the Watsons knew a whole lot about the intricacies of computer engineering, yet that didn't prevent IBM from rising to dominance. </p>
<p>Don't get me wrong. I agree with you that Bill Gates is a pretty darn good coder, and almost certainly far better than most of the leaders of most computer companies out there. I'm just saying that you don't personally need to be a good coder to run a successful computer company.</p>
<p>Have you been accepted to Harvard? Sounds like you've made your decision. Stop wasting these people's time when you're so poorly informed. "Donny, you're out of your element"-The Big Lebowski</p>
<p>God mdx, you are an idiot. Harvard's math department is one of the departments on which the school has made its reputation. Look at MIT's math faculty also before you start shooting your mouth off.</p>
<p>Please excuse any language I use, but I am simply perplexed by the weight you are giving to the most superflous details when trying to decide between schools. I applied to MIT and not Harvard, even though both my dad and sister went to Harvard. Last October, I spent several days in Boston, talking to faculty at both schools. I talked to the Dean of Mechanical Engineering at Harvard and she explicitly told me that people who do engineering at Harvard often use this degree as a tool to launch them into other careers, primarily in business and economics. She used the example of the cell phone. She talked about how at MIT, every time the professors see a cell phone, they are amazed by the technological advances. At Harvard, the professors don't have this same level of passion towards technological advances such as cell phones. She also talked about how for the frosh orientation for the ME students, she brought in a rocket and launched it. The students were unimpressed. She claimed that something like this would never happen at MIT, because people have much greater devotion to math and physics. </p>
<p>In other words, you have to weigh what you want from a college, NOT look at people who graduated from there and how many stupid math competitions they won. Guess what? Are you incapable of being the worlds next richest man if you go to MIT? no. When Bill Gates chose to go to Harvard, was it because he felt it would make him the richest man alive? Probably not. You shouldn't view other peoples' successes/failures as an indication of your own merit. When you get back a test that you did poorly on, do you just say "well everyone else did bad, so I guess it's ok." No, you should view yourself as an independent individual who is capable of doing whatever you want. Trust me, MIT engineering would not hold you back from reaching your potential.</p>