<p>10</a> top colleges for tech CEOs</p>
<ol>
<li>Berkeley</li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>Harvard/Dartmouth</li>
<li>Caltech/Cornell/Columbia/Northwestern/Princeton/Penn</li>
</ol>
<p>So, that any of those CEOs dies or quits would completely flip the ranking? :)</p>
<p>^ Absolutely! :)</p>
<p>Berkeley, Stanford, Harvard – in the top 3 isn’t surprising. What was surprising to me was the glaring absence of MIT, and schools like CMU, Michigan, Penn State, Texas-Austin, Duke and UIUC.</p>
<p>I’m just waiting for slipper to praise Dartmouth and say the data should be adjusted for class size… :)</p>
<p>MIT grads go to labs, duh. :P</p>
<p>For those of you who want to know which college is going to “make” you rich:</p>
<p>1) Bill Gates - Harvard (dropout)
2) Warren Buffett - U. of Nebraska; Columbia
3) Larry Ellison - UChicago (dropout)
4) Charles Koch - MIT
5) David Koch - MIT
6) Christy Walton - no college
7) George Soros - London School of Economics
8) Sheldon Adelson - City College of New York (dropout)
9) Jim Walton - University of Arkansas
10) Alice Walton - Trinity University</p>
<p>On a side note, Carlos Slim of Mexico, the richest man in the world, went to Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico.</p>
<p>Source: Forbes 400
The Richest People in America - Forbes
[The</a> Richest People in America - Forbes](<a href=“http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/]The”>The Forbes 400 2022)</p>
<p>Carlos Slim Helu & family - Forbes
[Carlos</a> Slim Helu & family - Forbes](<a href=“http://www.forbes.com/profile/carlos-slim-helu/]Carlos”>Carlos Slim Helu & family)</p>
<p>
You fell for the trap … have to read the fine print. The list is really spread out. The top ranked schools presented here only have a few alum represented:</p>
<h1>1 UCB – 5</h1>
<h1>2 Stanford – 4</h1>
<h1>3 Harvard, Dartmouth – 3</h1>
<h1>4 the six universities have only 2 each</h1>
<p>We know that Michigan has one (Larry Page), as are 50+ other universities.</p>
<p>^ But every additional CEO added to the list - tremendously - improves the ranking of the school, bcoz it takes a lot to produce just one alum to head an empire in the tech world. Imagine if Michigan has one more, in addition to Page. It would then be in the top 10.</p>
<p>Don’t be such a wet blanket, GoBlue…Berkeley is obviously the best. :p</p>
<p>You would really know through data like these that, above all else, Berkeley’s strongest is in technology, engineering, innovation and entrepreneurship. It is in these areas where Berkeley can really stand side-by-side with the super heavyweight names, such as, Stanford, Harvard and MIT.</p>
<p>Probably has a lot to do with size and location. Berkeley and Stanford are both near Silicon Valley, and Berkeley is larger than Stanford.</p>
<p>But counting CEOs means small sample sizes which are easily influenced by a single person becoming CEO or no longer being CEO.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Link: [The</a> Best Cities For Tech Jobs - Forbes](<a href=“http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2012/05/17/the-best-cities-for-tech-jobs/]The”>The Best Cities For Tech Jobs)</p>
<p>P.S. I see #8 tOSU - Columbus on the rise in terms of Tech Jobs!! Go Bucks!! :)</p>
<p>UCBalumnus, Stanford’s MBA is larger than of Berkeley’s.</p>
<p>The data set is too small to be very meaningful. They’re only looking at 50 people. As others pointed out, a single CEO transition could shake up the the results. A more meaningful survey would be to look at all the CEOs and CTOs (regardless of earnings) of all the tech companies in the Fortune 1000, or something like that, then adjust for school size. Berkeley, after all, has about 6x more undergraduates than Dartmouth, yet only graduated 2 more of these tech CEOs than Dartmouth.</p>
<p>More meaningful still would be to look at patents, publications, PhDs, full professorships, and other accomplishments associated with acquired knowledge in the fields of interest. After all, we know it is possible to become a famous tech CEO even after dropping out of college. So, financial success in these companies may have little to do with the treatment effects of studying at particular schools (though it may be correlated to the selection effects of getting admitted to some of them).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. It’s for the same reason why I don’t think the ranking of schools based on the number of alumni who won Rhodes - alone- is very meaningful. A pool of ALL scholarships and awards (Rhodes + Gates + Fulbright + Marshall + Mitchell + etc.) is more meaningful, but even that isn’t entirely meaningful.</p>
<p>
Nobody is doing this. It is just for fun, like every morning we want to see if the sun rises from the east or not, on a good day. And certainly we don’t expect it to rise from the west. </p>
<p>It is still comfort to know that Stanford won 5/32 Rhodes this year.</p>
<p>^ What about Stanford’s performance for Gates, Fulbright, Truman, Mitchell and Marshall this year?</p>
<p>Wait,… what? Oh, I have been drunk since Stanford won 5 of Rhodes. Besides, it is too dark to see my Gate(s), and who? Mitchell or Marshall? You need to wait till it is full bright outside to check where the sun will rise, and see those guys…</p>
<p>P.S. Sometimes I like UCBChemEGrad because he knows when not push the button to wake me up…</p>