<p>I was being sarcastic in describing my amusement (sorry). </p>
<p>Paul Allen's success is not Bill Gates' accomplishment. This debate is getting silly.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I have not yet visited school so my idea of "fit" may change and I may discover that I dont want to go to some of my top picks! Who knows!
[/quote]
I would definitely suggest visiting before you apply. The only things that are the same about the Ivies is that they belong to the same sports league and they have low acceptance rates. Other than that the atmospheres are very different. </p>
<p>Also look into schools outside the Ivies. While you have as good a chance as any (I can't really give you concrete chances until you've taken the SAT), the fact remains that the Ivies are reaches for everyone these days. Research some matches and safeties. College Board has a good search engine and is a good jumping off point.</p>
<p>Remember, don't limit yourself. There are 100s of excellent colleges. Not just 8. The goal is to find your fit. Whether this is at Penn or Harvard or UVA or UCLA, you'll get an excellent education regardless.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Paul Allen's success is not Bill Gates' accomplishment.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, yes it was.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This debate is getting silly.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah...it is. I didn't start it though.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think if you go to Harvard to meet a guy like Bill, you run a big chance of losing a lot of money for nothing. It is sort of like running around a golf course with a hot dog at the end of a stick, hoping to get struck by lightening. Sure, it can happen. It just isn't a way to guarantee yourself a cooked hot dog (and it probably won't be worth the trouble).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Certainly nobody is denying that the chances of you finding a business partner who will turn you into a future billionaire are vanishingly small even if you go to a top school. Paul Allen is just an* example* of the power of networks. One of the major advantages of any top school (whether undergrad or high school) is the value of the network. That social capital is one of the major calling cards of any top school. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I do love the idea of people writing about what a failure Paul Allen is as a businessman. That is very amusing.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, frankly, he is. He had one big hit - Microsoft, and that's mostly because of Bill Gates. He had already resigned before Microsoft launched its IPO and then experienced hypergrowth through the late 80's and early 90's. {To be fair, he retired because he had been diagnosed with cancer}. </p>
<p>Credit Paul Allen for helping Bill Gates establish the foundations of Microsoft as a viable company and icredit Allen for helping Gates land and then implement the watershed IBM/MS-DOS licensing agreement. But don't credit Allen for all of Microsoft's later achievements - Windows, MSOffice, Windows NT, IE - that turned it from a successful middle-size sotware company into the richest company on the globe. Paul Allen was just a stowaway along for the ride for all of that. </p>
<p>I think there is little dispute that Allen's post-Microsoft business ventures have been largely unsuccessful. Sure, Allen has a lot of money and can therefore own a lot of businesses. But that doesn't mean that those businesses are successful. Seriously, are his investments generating greater-than-market returns (as that is what it mean for an investment to be successful)? I think you would be hard-pressed to argue that point.</p>
<p>Well, I guess the debate continues. I really haven't looked at stats on Paul Allen's other businesses. Almost all highly successful people have had their failures and substandard returns, and wealth often comes primarily from one source. Bill Gates is also a one hit wonder.</p>
<p>Do you think that holding on to billions, and staying in the top 100 for years, is easy? Can you give Paul some respect for that? Surely he could gain a little more admiration from you than the 750K/YR. Wharton MBA who works in a cubicle in an investment bank?</p>
<p>I just find it amazing that you say Paul Allen's success is Bill's accomplishment, or that it is all about the "network" you're in. What you are proposing is that Bill Gates chose some lug from Washington State purely because they clicked in high school (instead of any of his new contacts at Harvard). And this ball and chain (Paul) somehow didn't get in Bill's way as he built Microsoft. Bill kept him around until he came down with cancer, for old time's sake. Isn't that a little ridiculous? I think we can agree that Bill Gates has at least an above average business sense. Smart business people choose partners wisely, and don't keep anyone "around for the ride".</p>
<p>Just because someone said in a book that Paul Allen is not responsible for his own success does not mean it is true. Don't believe everything you read.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, I guess the debate continues. I really haven't looked at stats on Paul Allen's other businesses. Almost all highly successful people have had their failures and substandard returns, and wealth often comes primarily from one source. Bill Gates is also a one hit wonder.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The major difference between Gates "one hit" and Allen is that Gates's one hit has lasted for more than 30 years, and has transmuted itself through a number of key tech strategy permutations. For example, Microsoft changed radically when its platform evolved from DOS to Windows, and again when it added applications (MSOffice), and yet again when it added Internet capabilities, and arguably yet again today as it adds the Xbox. The vast majority of tech companies are unable to survive these transitions. Look at what happened to DEC. Look at what happened to the other minicomputer makers (Prime, Data General, Norsk Data). Look at the old mainframe manufacturers - Control Data, Burroughs, Bull HN, SDS, etc. The fact that you've probably never even heard of even of these firms speaks volumes about their (in)ability to cross technology transition points.</p>
<p>In contrast, like I said, Allen was around to start Microsoft, and did help Gates win the Deal of the Century. He deserves credit for that. But that's it. He retired after that. He had nothing to do with Windows. He had almost nothing to do with MSOffice. He certainly had nothing to do with Microsoft's Internet strategy. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Do you think that holding on to billions, and staying in the top 100 for years, is easy? Can you give Paul some respect for that? Surely he could gain a little more admiration from you than the 750K/YR. Wharton MBA who works in a cubicle in an investment bank?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You tell me. If somebody were to give you billions, how hard would it be for you to just stash it in the bank? Or just invest it in an index fund? Doesn't seem very hard at all. He could do that and just spend the rest of his life on the beach. By doing so, he would have certainly stayed in the top 100 of the wealthiest people in the world, because he was given so much money to begin with. </p>
<p>Look, the money he got was basically akin to inherited wealth -i.e. similar to the wealth that the Walton family has because Sam Walton founded Walmart. A major difference, of course, is what I stated above, Paul Allen did co-found Microsoft and did put it on a path to becoming a prominent software company, so he clearly did more to deserve the money than the Walton family did. But once they got the money, it's not hard at all to just sit on it and stay rich. </p>
<p>Yet what did Allen do with his booty? He invested it in initiatives that actually * lost money*. His investments have actually * destroyed value*. Granted, he got so much money from Microsoft that even after losing so much money on his investments, he still merits a place in the top 100. But that doesn't merit "respect". You're supposed to invest to create value, not destroy it. </p>
<p>Hence, I would argue that his post-Microsoft activities are actually LESS worthy of respect than the Wharton MBA making 750k in an investment bank. At least that latter guy is creating some value (at least for himself). Allen has actually lost value. He's lost some of his own wealth. He's also lost the wealth of other shareholders in his investments. </p>
<p>For example, clearly the other shareholders of Charter Communications have lost a tremendous amount of value while Allen has been the Chairman. Why is that worthy of respect? Personally, if I were a Charter shareholder, I would be pushing to oust Allen as Chair. His reign has been nothing but a disaster for the shareholders. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I just find it amazing that you say Paul Allen's success is Bill's accomplishment, or that it is all about the "network" you're in. What you are proposing is that Bill Gates chose some lug from Washington State purely because they clicked in high school (instead of any of his new contacts at Harvard). And this ball and chain (Paul) somehow didn't get in Bill's way as he built Microsoft. Bill kept him around until he came down with cancer, for old time's sake. Isn't that a little ridiculous? I think we can agree that Bill Gates has at least an above average business sense. Smart business people choose partners wisely, and don't keep anyone "around for the ride".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First off, I never said it was ALL Bill's accomplishment. Like I said, I give credit to Allen for helping Bill co-found Microsoft and sticking with it through the early lean years. That is indeed a worthy achievement. He was no ball-and-chain during those years. </p>
<p>But I think you greatly discount the importance of personal contacts in business. The truth is, when you're just a 19-year-old college sophomore who is just starting out, you don't have the time to go around performing a wide-net search about who you are going to partner with. This is especially true when you're talking about a fast-moving industry like the computer industry. You don't have time to dither around. When you see an opportunity, you have to run with it. Back in those days, most people, even at Harvard, couldn't even dream of a concept such as a 'personal computer'. Back then, the only computers that anybody had ever heard of were the giant mainframes that took up entire rooms of huge data centers. Personal computers at the time were little more than just hobbyist kits that you had to assemble yourself. </p>
<p>In the case of Paul Allen, at least he shared the vision with Bill of the personal computer becoming a powerful future force in technology (which history proved to be emphatically correct), and he was willing to do the grunt-work necessary to get a company started. So at least Paul was enthusiastic about starting the company with Bill. I'm sure that plenty of other people that Bill knew, especially if they were Harvard students, were not enthusiastic about such an idea. After all, think about it. If you're going to Harvard in the 1970's, back when tech entrepreneurship was not in vogue, would you be willing to withdraw from school to pursue a business opportunity that has to to with a technology you'd never even heard of before? If anything, that makes Bill's story all the more remarkable, because he was willing to withdraw from Harvard to pursue that idea. </p>
<p>In fact, it is arguable that Bill may have preferred to partner with his Currier-House dormmate Ballmer, or perhaps at least engaged in a 3-man partnership with himself, Allen, and Ballmer. But Ballmer didn't want to do it, preferring the safe route of graduating and then joining a big company (P&G). Only when Microsoft was a fairly well-established (if still quite small) company did Ballmer finally join. </p>
<p>But the point is this. Bill was faced with the same dilemma that all new entrepreneurs are faced with - how do you find people when you don't even have an established organization? The answer that has been proven time and time again throughout history is that you hire people that you know - i.e. your friends and family. Maybe it's not the best choice. But it's often times the only realistic choice you have. </p>
<p>Just look at it from Bill's perspective. Who else was he going to choose? He could spend time evangelizing the concept of the PC to all his Harvard friends, and try to inspire enthusiasm within them. Or you can go with your old high school friend who already know about the technology and is already enthusiastic about the idea of starting a company. That seems like a total no-brainer to me. </p>
<p>Yet once he's "in for the ride", you can't easily get rid of him later. Allen was indeed very useful in the beginning, and as a beginning entrepreneur, frankly, that's all you can really hope for. Whether Allen might become a drag in the future (he did not, because he retired of cancer, but let's say he did), is of little concern to you because most new business ventures never really get off the ground. You worry about future problems in the future.</p>
<p>The analogy would be something like venture capital. Many founders rail at the strictures placed upon them by venture capital firms as their company becomes successful. For example, often times, many VC firms will actually remove the founders from active management of the firm as it becomes successful, and insert their own management team. That's what happened at Cisco Systems. Many founders consider the VC firms to be litte more than vultures or leeches, picking away at the meat of their successful company and taking the juiciest morsels for themselves. But entrepreneurs continue to engage VC firms. Why? Because they don't have a choice. They need the starting capital. Without that capital, they would never build a successful firm in the first place. </p>
<p>Similarly, most entrepreneurs pick their early partners beacuse they don't really have a choice. You can't compare the Microsoft of today vs. the Microsoft of 1975. The Microsoft of today obviously has the resources to search far and wide to find the optimal partner. The Microsoft of 30 years ago had no such ability. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Just because someone said in a book that Paul Allen is not responsible for his own success does not mean it is true. Don't believe everything you read.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Like I said, Allen should be credited with getting Microsoft off the ground and growing it to a mid-size software company. The vast majority of people can't do that. </p>
<p>But what he does NOT deserve credit for are all his post-Microsoft ventures. In fact, if anything, he deserves discredit. How much shareholder value has he destroyed in those investments? Why does that deserve kudos. Like I said, if I was a Charter shareholder, I would be furious.</p>
<p>Back to the OP's question, I think that if you can raise your SATs you have an excellent shot at top Universities. However, as bad1017 said, there is more out there than just the ivy League. Places such as MIT, UVA, and other nonivies have excellent business programs, if that is what you are looking for.</p>
<p>iAy caramba!</p>
<p>I read your whole post, Sakky. I'll have to mull that over. Well argued, BTW.</p>
<p>
[quote]
iAy caramba!</p>
<p>I read your whole post, Sakky. I'll have to mull that over. Well argued, BTW.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>sakky owns. No doubt about it.</p>
<p>so you guys, any more tips? how about an essay topic?</p>
<p>You guys completely hijacked her thread lol.</p>
<p>ahem</p>
<p>???? you can't sign up for the SAT's or the PSAT's 2 days before you take the test.</p>
<p>i suggest getting honest with yourself about your scores, and then do something about it.</p>
<p>and.... i read the first paragraph of that long post above.... Microsoft didn't invent Windows.. and a host of other things associated with Microsoft. Microsoft has earned a name for being a bit of an intellectual property thief.</p>
<p>"Wow that sounds amazing! but do you have to be Hispanic American? Because I'm 100% hispanic so would I qualify? and where could I find more information about this?"</p>
<p>Are you not an American citizen? Then you can't get financial aid or participate in a bunch of programs which are what actually help minorities. If you are considered an international student, then that will count AGAINST you and is worse than being white or asian.</p>
<p>actually in my school you can sign up for the PSAT 2 days before the test. To answer your other question, I have dual citizenship. I was born outside the U.S. but I just gained my citizenship this yr so yes I do get the benefits and dont count as an international student.</p>
<p>
[quote]
and.... i read the first paragraph of that long post above.... Microsoft didn't invent Windows
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, yeah they did. After all, Windows is in fact a copyrighted technology of Microsoft's. So they did in fact invent Windows. After all, did Windows exist (as a copyrighted technology) in any other form except under Microsoft's purview?</p>
<p>What I think you mean to say is that Microsoft didn't invent the concept of the GUI. That is clearly true; numerous GUI's existed before Windows. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Microsoft has earned a name for being a bit of an intellectual property thief.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's an unfair characteriziation. The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of technologies were all derived from precursors. Nobody who knows the tech history disputes that Microsoft did not invent the GUI. After all, the Apple Macintosh had the first truly commercially successful GUI out there - and even the Mac was itself derived from the Xerox PARC Alto. In fact, Steve Jobs first got the idea of the GUI and the Mac when he attended a private demonstration of the Alto. Similarly, the Ipod was far from being the first MP3 player out there; numerous MP3 players had been on the market for years prior to the launch of the Ipod. Google was not the first Internet search engine out there. In fact, it wasn't even the 10th. Nor did Google even invent the concept of marrying search with contextual ads - that business model had been first pursued by Goto.com (which was later bought by Yahoo). </p>
<p>Look, the truth of the matter is only rarely does the first company to invent a technology also become the most successful company to market that technology. In fact, many times, the first company in any new market will fail miserably. For example, the first GUI's (i.e. the Xerox Alto, the Apple Lisa) were all commercial failures. Most of the early MP3 players were unsuccessful. Ever heard of the Eiger Labs MPMan F10? How about the Rave MP2300? Or the I-Jam IJ-100? I didn't think so. These were just some of the early MP3 players out there that failed.</p>
<p>Look, there's nothing wrong with waiting for a market to develop and learning from the mistakes of others. That's a perfectly legitimate business strategy. One could call that 'IP theft', but there's nothing wrong with coming in with a similar product in the same market. That's what competition is all about. Just because you're the first to invent or commercialize a product doesn't mean that you automatically own that product's market forever.</p>
<p>i was thinking about maybe joining the NSCA (Nevada Student Council Association) my senior yr but I'm scared of overwhelming myself. How necessary would it be to up my chances of acceptance to the colleges of my choice?</p>
<p>Your grades are always the most important thing. You also need extra time for SAT prep. If you are truly passionate about this new activity, and if it won't get in the way of these other two things, than I say go for it. I did google the name to see what it was all about, but after a quick look I am still not sure. I do know that being a member of your school board as a student would be a five-star EC, but I can't say anything for or against the EC you've mentioned here.</p>
<p>NASC (or NSCA I get confused lol :) ) is like an executive board position but instead of being in charge of just your school, you overlook all of the student councils in the state. It's pretty cool and you get to go to a lot of leadership conferences, I would do it my senior yr. My conflict though is that I'm also going to be Student Body Pres., Honors Society Pres., and Interact Club pres., along with yr book editor. On top of that, I have all AP classes also. So would like to do it but I run the big risk of burning myself out. so do you think that for now, my ec's are ok?</p>
<p>I certainly do. Every club leadership role is different. You know better than anyone how your particular clubs work, and how much time and effort you'll need to devote to each thing you've planned. You just want to make sure that you do everything you commit to well, and come off to faculty and teachers as someone who really has it together and can manage well whatever they take on.</p>