[codingwagie]

1. Went to a top school

Prestigious people are essentially handed capital. This drives most of the funding at the very early stage. A random founder with no connections or background needs an MVP product with real traction, and even then may raise on worse terms than a stanford/harvard grad.

Raising venture funding can be thought of as a career path. Its not entrepreneurship. VC backed founders are more similar to hedge fund managers, they essentially get paid out a percentage of the capital they manage, assuming they manage it well. Raise 20M, you are bound to build a business with some revenue.

The bet is that if they fund 20 Harvard grads, one of them might be like Gates. Even if the rest are duds. The math still kind of works out, they need an outlier.

[gwbas1c]

I wouldn't look at that as a "rich get richer" situation. Spend some time with people who attended different calibers of schools, and you'll see that it's not quite so simple to explain, especially when you spend time listening to different peoples' insights about life, and their self discipline. (The kind of insights and discipline needed to start a successful company with VC money.)

The schools aren't gatekeepers to VC networks.

I wouldn't put too much weight on this article. It's just statistics without interpretation, because it doesn't really explain what makes a successful startup founder.

[hnhg]

I have worked closely over the years with people from Ivy League/Oxbridge schools to small universities from developing countries and I would not put the people from the elite institutions at the top of the rankings of discipline or ability from my experience.

[codingwagie]

I live in NYC and have raised capital/am part of social networks of founders in NYC. I have first hand experience with this, I understand the game really well.

The schools absolutely are gatekeepers.

[gwbas1c]

Correlation does not imply causation.

I'm being a little cagey because I don't like to generalize in public forums.

In this case, what I'd say is that Ivy League schools both recruit and attract certain people.

> The schools absolutely are gatekeepers.

To put weight behind that statement, we'd need to somehow believe that someone who can attend an ivy league school, when attending a less prestigious school, is substantially less likely to find VC money.

I personally believe that such a person is attracted to an ivy league school, such that I would argue that someone who is likely to raise VC money is more likely to attend an ivy league school. It's not that the schools are the gatekeepers, it's that if they change their admittance criteria, the "minds that think alike" will attend other schools, and then those other schools will get a reputation for their grads gobbling up most of the VC.

IE, a certain kind of person is likely to raise VC, and that certain kind of person is likely to attend an ivy league school: Correlation does not imply causation.

[codingwagie]

Dude just go look at the founders at ycombinator, huge percentage went to top schools. They only interview them for 10 minutes. Without some kind of proof of being able to run a startup (MVP and traction), capital is allocated based on education.

[sabbaticaldev]

are you successful then? what unicorn are we talking about?

[codingwagie]

I'm saying at the seed stage, in nyc, the funding is like 80% ivy league grads

[borski]

But that doesn't prove your point. Plenty of startup founders raise funding without an Ivy degree, or a degree at all. Most people without a degree, however, don't try to raise funding, whereas more people from 'prestigious' schools see it as an option.

[Kalanos]

In biotech, this is an understatement. PhD's get to develop stuff for years using university funds while on a salary.

[cqqxo4zV46cp]

That feels like a slightly different can of worms, though.

[borski]

That's an entirely different topic

[BartjeD]

And they work slavery hours,6 am to 1am

[Kalanos]

so? most founders are doing that without pay, without a budget, and (most importantly) without the credibility that comes from the org/lab/prof

[BartjeD]

It's apples and oranges.

If a founder is successful they stand to earn billions in intellectual property value, not to mention the income from the product itself.

PHD's earn practically no money even if they are succesful, apart from earning their degree. (Which has an abstract long-term monetary value)

Seems very different to me. Apart from this, PHD's are employees, while founders are... well... bosses ;)