31–40 of 68 posts
IIT grads get funded to study using taxpayers money in India and they migrate to the US. There is no use for the country funding them with high quality education. We should stop funding IITs with tax payers money which is of no benefit to the people or the country. India's brain drain.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/indias-brain-...
IIT grads get funded to study using taxpayers money in India and they migrate to the US. There is no use for the country funding them with high quality education. We should stop funding IITs with tax payers money which is of no benefit to the people or the country. India's brain drain.
IIT grads get funded to study using taxpayers money in India and they migrate to the US. There is no use for the country funding them with high quality education. We should stop funding IITs with tax payers money which is of no benefit to the people or the country. India's brain drain.
Also, in general, more public funding for education does pay for itself in the long run, though I'm not sure how that's adjusted for net emigration.
(Edit: corrected fat fingered typo.)
This ordering is bunk because the author makes no attempt to normalize for student population. Larger schools have a massive advantage compared to smaller ones. Compare the University of California and MIT. University of California has 250,000 students and MIT has 11,000. After normalizing the data, MIT produces 1 unicorn per 1,200 yearly enrolled student, while UoC produces 1 unicorn per 13,900 yearly enrolled stude…
IITs collectively have only 33k undergrads, according to wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Institutes_of_Technolog... That would make the entire system comparable to a large state school in the US. They do have proportionally more grad students, so total student body is right around the biggest state schools - Florida, Texas, Ohio, etc. Definitely not on the same level as Stanford or Harvard, but still…
That's the relevant number, since those who've founded unicorns can probably be assumed to have started their undergraduate education at least a decade ago. (4-5 years in college and then at least a few years working).
The article stops just short of implying a causal connection between what school you go to and whether you're going to "found a unicorn" but come on! Maybe, just maybe , could it be that this deserves a little deeper look? Perhaps people who have the opportunity to go to one of these top schools have that opportunity because of some other structural advantage that also provides them the opportunity to found a unicorn…
Obviously. I think the biggest benefit this group has is the safety to fail. I worked 40+ hours and was doing 12+ credits for my undergrad. When I graduated, I had massive loans and bills to pay. I wonder what I could have done if I had two years with no bills to work on something and zero debt looming.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They also likely acquire a lot of amazing connections at those schools.
Furthermore, their qualifications after graduation from these school are more respected regardless of the quality of the education described by the degree.
This article will be downvoted because it goes against many peoples mental model that, if you work hard, you can be successful. Well, statistically, Stanford/Harvard/IIT graduates are more likely to be successful. If you go to Berkely or Georgia Tech, good for you, but the Stanford et al. grads are probably better.
Better? It is just much easier for them to get funding. More funding -> More successes. Source: I know a ton of people who went to Stanford and who had zero trouble getting near unlimited funding. Also the purpose of this article is to appeal to the Indian reader base that is qz.com. They are writing articles to appease their demographics.
The article stops just short of implying a causal connection between what school you go to and whether you're going to "found a unicorn" but come on! Maybe, just maybe , could it be that this deserves a little deeper look? Perhaps people who have the opportunity to go to one of these top schools have that opportunity because of some other structural advantage that also provides them the opportunity to found a unicorn…
I understand that it might be difficult to get the data, but I can't avoid being skeptical about the value of such companies, when there's no mention of profitability...