<p>This is a very interesting article...only something like 10% of the CEO's in fortune 500 companies went to an IVY leage school for Undergrad or MBA's</p>
<p>I guess it truly isnt where you went to school but what you do after it...</p>
<p>Well yeah, reality is reality, it is what it is.... productive people will do what it takes to succeed regardless of schooling, etc.</p>
<p>10%... compared to the 0.000003% of the country that goes to an Ivy. They're actually quite overrepresented.</p>
<p>well obviously they're overrepresented....but the number is still much lower than i ever would have expected...im just suggesting that maybe all of our attempts to get into top colleges is somewhat overrated....if we're good enough to get the job done....then where we went to school really has a smaller effect than many of us believe......haha trust me...i def had "ivy fever" as i tried to get into the best school i could....but this was def an eye opener</p>
<p>I think the point here, Diezel, is that for the clout and recognition received by the Ivies, 10% really isn't all that much... I mean the students who go there worked their entire lives to achieve their college destination, and it's (according to the article) increasingly becoming less of a guarantee that their education = top dog... oh, what a great irony that would be.... a CEO from the University of NOBODYCARES hiring his/her administrative assistant from Harvard, and his/her call center manager from Yale! I'm sure it's not all that uncommon</p>
<p>What I think is most interesting about this entire aspect of education is that as the Selectivity of the HYP-type colleges increases their Market share of the board rooms of America is actually Decreasing. This could mean that the HYP-type colleges are becoming more and more breeding grounds for future academics instead of future business leaders(which is what Fred Smith blames in that article).</p>
<p>Or it could mean that the HYP-college selection process is fatally flawed and does not select future CEOs but actually weeds them out. Which kind of makes sense given that the whole "I was captain of the mathletes! and chair of the french club! and won the science olympiad!" mentality, that those colleges love, is overweening and obsessive-compulsive to say the least.</p>
<p>using CEOs as your group for judging success is a terrible idea.</p>
<p>newedition....very true....but look at your audience....what forum are you in?...exactly..... in a culture driven by Consumerism...CEO's are the pinnacle of success..... its the "American Dream" becoming true..and really this article points out that maybe the American dream isnt as much as a fallicy as some believe</p>
<p>interesting article..</p>
<p>Going to an Ivy League is not necessary, but going to a top university really helps. If you add Ivy-league level universities into the mix (the top 15 LACs, top 15 non-Ivy private research universities and top 7 or 8 state universities), the number of CEOs from the new list of would jump from 11% to 50%. I'd say that 50% of CEOs having graduated from the top 2% of the nation's universities is a pretty telling sign.</p>
<p>Besides, there is much more to success than becoming CEO. I'd say a much better thing to look at is the % of executives (senior VPs, Directors, General Managers, Managing Directors, CFOs, COOs, etc...) who graduated from top universities.</p>
<p>10% is actually a pretty high number for these reasons</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Ivy league grades have become an increasingly smaller and smaller percentage of total college graduates. Thus, a decline in total percentage is expected.</p></li>
<li><p>There is more to buisness than being a CEO. Today, more and more ivy grads look into Banking and Consulting sides of buisness rather than pure management. </p></li>
<li><p>The fortune 500 is not a very good source for judgement. The reason is that most of those companies are very established industries. A lot of grads prefer to found their own companies rather than work for these giants.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Found a Yale Daily News article responding to this study:</p>
<p>There finally found an article that links to the actual study:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2112215/%5B/url%5D">http://www.slate.com/id/2112215/</a></p>
<p>And here's one that might be interesting to undergraduate business majors:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.bus.wisc.edu/news/0122.asp%5B/url%5D">http://www.bus.wisc.edu/news/0122.asp</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
1. Ivy league grades have become an increasingly smaller and smaller percentage of total college graduates. Thus, a decline in total percentage is expected.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That doesn't explain why the percentage of CEOs who went to Private undergraduates is decreasing as well. Lots of new privates are being founded and many privates (including Ivies) are expanding.</p>
<p>
[quote]
2. There is more to buisness than being a CEO. Today, more and more ivy grads look into Banking and Consulting sides of buisness rather than pure management.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You can be a CEO of an investment banking corporation or a consulting firm too ya know.</p>
<p>And Alexandre the UPenn study Does look at the rest of the boardroom's resumes. It takes the top 10 or anyone at a "C-level" post. See slate article. I really wish those UPenn guys weren't trying to make people pay for that study too. Might just buy it and repost it here.</p>
<p>"Besides, there is much more to success than becoming CEO. I'd say a much better thing to look at is the % of executives (senior VPs, Directors, General Managers, Managing Directors, CFOs, COOs, etc...) who graduated from top universities."</p>
<p>At many ibanks/hedge funds/PE/VC/etc mid-level execs have higher compensations that many CEOs essentially making them "more successful". For example, I know an associate (2 levels unders partner at aspecific PE firm) who makes 8 figures and is on the board of directors of 4 mid/large public firms (he's 39 btw)...many CEOs don't reach this level of success...btw the VAST majority of people at this specific PE firm are ivy/top pub/top LAC (more ivy than anything) who worked a few years at a bulge bracket bank and then were recruited to this firm...the first year analysts at this PE firm make in the high 6 figures and most are only 25-26 years old...again most CEOs didn't reach this level of success at that age. So looking at CEOs really doesn't matter...they are only a tiny subset, as alexandre pointed out, of successful business people.</p>
<p>that is a good point.... but id like to see more data on that.... thats a bit too subjective to be taken too far...but point made nonetheless</p>
<p>I must ask in regards to the points about CEO's being made on this thread... are we strictly speaking of the fortune 500, or all CEO's (technically entreprenuers/business owners in many cases) in existence? If we are talking all CEO's in existence, I highly doubt any claims made about top universities providing ~half of them. Besides, CEO is just a title... and a quick study on rich (if that's what = success) Americans would tell you that many of the balance sheet rich own small businesses that you may never think would make them so rich... In all actuality, true success is a lifestyle more than a title. Being rich is one thing, being wealthy is an entirely new ball game.</p>
<p>if you read the article i put up 311Griff...its mainly about fortune 500 CEO's</p>
<p>Oh, my bad. Me thinks that becoming a fortune 500 CEO is less about level of knowledge and more about luck and who you know. If your aspirations are to be a fortune 500 CEO, I hope you're prepared to give up a lot of other luxuries in life... like leisure time spent without worrying and memories worth holding onto with any children you may have.</p>
<p>I think its about the combo of doing what you love and also being good at it</p>