[redmerchant2]

Some of these comments are sound like they were made by high schoolers who think HYPSM or bust. CMU has one of the most rigorous CS/engineering programs.

While the top 5% of Stanford grads might be "better" due to how selective they are. But I'd bet the median CMU CS major knows more, programs better etc. Simply because Stanford has a high percent of legacy, athlete, and moneyed international students that buy in. Whereas anecdotally, while CMU students are less well-rounded, those students are serious grinders.

If anything, this is proof that prestige, not talent, and who you know matters most. I've heard of several start ups with mostly Berkley/UC grads and one Stanford grad, and they always introduce him first for pitches.

[0xB31B1B]

yea, none of that stuff really matters though. The magic of the MIT type schools is that students are expected to go into entrepreneurial roles, found companies etc in a way that is not the norm at schools like CMU. The peer set at MIT will have better network for fundraising because more people do it, and the network allows the participants to have an edge in success through fair (they get feedback from friends who have done the process before and give suggestions on what to do) and unfair (their wealthy investor buddy can give them warm intros to VCs) means.

[redmerchant2]

MIT can foster that attitude because funding is generous, there’s so much support and safety net even for undergrads. In turn the success stories feeds back and bolsters.

It’s only obvious because they are given the chance to demonstrate their capability.

I’m arguing that the inherent baseline quality of student does not differ much. If given the chance CMU/Berkeley/etc alums can also succeed. But they’re locked out of many chances due to school prestige.