[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.