[danjl]

The Stanford startup looks AMAZING for five years, and then, after getting hundreds of millions in investment, they realize they are only making tens of thousands in revenue, everyone starts fighting, friendships and money are lost.

Meanwhile, the slow growing MIT company discovers a tangential product while developing their technology. They release the pivot product which slowly grows revenue. They build under revenue, never take investment money, and share revenues. Everyone gets rich and stays friends, and the VCs get nothing.

[ijidak]

I'd love to see the cumulative collective market cap of MIT founded companies vs Stanford companies.

My guess is that Stanford founded companies would win.

I'm an MIT grad myself. But I've noticed the incredible productivity of startups coming out of the Bay Area.

Though, not sure how much of that is Stanford grads specifically as opposed to other schools in the area (as well as graduates from schools around the country who flocked to the Bay Area).

[amirhirsch]

MIT companies in aggregate don't add up to a Google. ChatGPT did a pretty good job with these prompts and renders a pie chart with outdated valuations. Chat sharing doesn't work with the embedded pie charts, here are the prompts:

"Can you produce a pie chart of the top 10 most valuable MIT companies?" <followed by some corrections and clarifications "Google is not an MIT founded company">

"Can you produce a pie chart of the top 10 most valuable Stanford companies?"

(Elon Musk went to Stanford for two days so it counted Tesla.)