<p>^ Both. </p>
<p>
Just because Barbara Boxer doesn’t understand how energy markets work doesn’t mean the guy is cantankerous. :)</p>
<p>If one divides each school’s total by the student(UG and Grad) population, tiny Dartmouth is probably on top again.</p>
<p>What impressive about Dartmouth is, it not only excel in the business world, but also in politics. As far as I know, two current US senators were Dartmouth undergraduates, not to mention two US Treasury Secretary in a roll.</p>
<p>Besides, such a small number get to be CEOs in the first place, looking at per capita figures is pointless. Dartmouth has what? 70,000 living alums? Of those 12 are CEOs. I don’t see how 12/70,000 is so much better than 11/300,000 since in either case, we are talking about exstreme outliers.</p>
<p>
You probably can make a simiar point when people claim Yale and Havard produce US Presidents. 2/100000 and 0/100000 rounding off to 4 decimal places are both 0. This is just at the top level and has to be viewed in the overall context of the school. For Dartmouth, this is backed up by the fact that it’s UG are among the highest paid in mid-career.</p>
<p>Professor, mid-career pay taken in a vacuum is not telling. If over 50% of Dartmouth alums live in NYC (hello cost of living!) and are either Lawyers, Doctors or Investment Bankers, it is only natural that their mid-career salaries are among the highest. Let us be honest, what percentage of Dartmouth alums come from wealthy families and attended private high schools. </p>
<p>At a school like Wisconsin, the majority of alums (definitely over 50%) attended public high schools, many grew up on farms and attended rural schools. Most of them still live in either Wisconsin, Illinois or Minnesota, and most of them are either Engineers, teachers, nurses etc…</p>
<p>Alex, Regardless, I just thought that Dartmouth is extraordinary in the business and financial world, just like Yale in politics, MIT in engineering, Johns Hopkins in medicine and Harvard in everything.</p>
<p>The top publics like Berkeley, Michigan,UVa, UNC, UWiscon, etc, will always do well total-number-wise, depending on how you massage the numbers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have no idea how deep Barbara Boxer’s knowledge of the energy market is, and I fail to see how it would be relevant to the character of Lee Raymond. Fwiw, since she is a Democrat Senator from California, I can safely assume that she is every bit as clueless as the other elected politicians from California. On the other hand, it is pretty clear that Lee Raymond’s leadership at Exxon was solely focused on maximizing profits and that his disdain for sound environmental practices was inexcusable. While nobody could expect an “awl man” to turn into a hopeless treehugger, there was a lot that Exxon and ExxonMobil could have done to show genuine leadership by starting to invest in green energy projects before it became as popular as unavoidable. </p>
<p>As far as a person, I do not think you know him too well. Perhaps you should ask what his neighbors in Dallas think of him, especially the Ursuline Academy kids who were denied a lighted soccer field because it would annoy this most despicable human being’s Friday nights.</p>
<p>“Alex, Regardless, I just thought that Dartmouth is extraordinary in the business and financial world, just like Yale in the politics, MIT in engineering, Johns Hopkins in medicine and Harvard in everything.”</p>
<p>I agree. I would add Wharton for Business, Stanford and Cal in Silicon Valley and Chicago and Columbia with Nobel Prize winners.</p>
<p>^ Fair enough, xiggi. You’re right, I don’t know his status in Dallas. But I would probably not want bright lights shining in my backyard either. Could you send a link for the story?</p>
<p>As for alternative energy investment, why would Exxon deviate from its core strategy? Especially in rather untested technologies that even the most optimistic forecasts only have a tiny portion contributing decades into the future? Better to stick to oil and natural gas where it knows best. Exxon has been a model for the industry by being conservative…no need for them to change strategy.</p>
<p>
Lee Raymond’s testimony during Congressional hearings was genius.</p>
<p>Lee Raymond was in the oil business. Not the windfarm “business” (with no profits is it even a business). Even the NYT had begrudging respect.
Soccer lights for some rich girls school?? Who cares.
We need a few more cranky old guys willing to talk the truth to politicos and the rest of the do nothing class.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/corporate_governance/MediaMentions/4-15-06_NYT.pdf[/url]”>http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/corporate_governance/MediaMentions/4-15-06_NYT.pdf</a></p>
<p>“Lee Raymond was in the oil business. Not the windfarm “business” (with no profits is it even a business).”</p>
<p>Ah, Barrons, you again demonstrate that not knowing a darn thing about a subject should not stop one to offer an opinion. What is the source of your knowledge of the profitability of windfarms, and that the term “business” should be placed between quotations marks as you opted to do? Have you ever placed your eyes on a spreadsheet or an income statement of a windfarm? Ignorance is bliss! </p>
<p>And, fwiw, when it comes to “green” energy, there is a lot more than windfarms! But as you say “who cares!”</p>
<p>And obviously to most “windfarms” is just shorthand for all the “green” technology that mostly is not profitable nor does it often turn out to be–particularly green. </p>
<p>That’s why Obama cited the need to “level the playing field” so that alternative energy had a chance to grow. By that he meant increasing the cost of current energy sources.</p>
<p><a href=“http://earth911.com/news/2010/11/15/report-how-green-is-our-energy-future/[/url]”>http://earth911.com/news/2010/11/15/report-how-green-is-our-energy-future/</a></p>
<p>Wow, the takeaway from that list for me had nothing to do with college, but with HBS crushing the competition. I’m pretty surprised to see one MBA program that dominant. Even taking relative size into account, that’s a hell of a result.</p>
<p>It surprises me because among high-level applicants, there’s quite a number who prefer other B schools in the top 5. Of course, many of the top MBA candidates don’t want to be CEOs, but I can’t imagine any business school that wouldn’t want to be high on the list.</p>
<p>^^ i.e. a carbon tax… California’s 2010 “administrative fee” for carbon admissions was $5 million to the large refinery I work for…at $0.15/ton. Market prices when fully implemented will be $30-40/ton. You do the math and how much Californians will be paying at the pump and on their utility bills…</p>
<p>Many companies send top promising young execs to HBS so there is a circular effect. Especially in the old days when the current crop of CEOs attended grad school. But it clearly dominates.</p>
<p>“Many companies send top promising young execs to HBS so there is a circular effect.”</p>
<p>Yes, but I perceived companies as doing this with Wharton, Kellogg, etc. too. I wouldn’t have thought that HBS would stand out so much in that elite company. But apparently it does – that sure doesn’t look like statistical noise.</p>
<p>Chicago Booth produces many CFO’s. UChicago MBA is probably the best in finance among top MBA programs. Dartmouth always drew students from upscale backgrounds in the northeast. Notre Dame and Holy Cross overachieve in CEO production with good accounting programs at both schools.</p>