Here’s the list:
At a glance, this list may not seem that surprising, but it is. The most interesting point is that the top 12 schools only account for 94 CEOs out of 500, or 18%. That’s a lot lower than most people would have guessed. In fact, if you believe the conspiracy fringe, you would have expected all of them to have come from evil Harvard (which only produced 5%).1. Harvard – 25 CEOs
2. Stanford – 11 CEOs
3. U. Penn – 8 CEOs
4. MIT – 7 CEOs
5. Cornell – 6 CEOs
6. Chicago – 6 CEOs
7. Northwestern – 6 CEOs
8. Columbia – 6 CEOs
9. Yale – 6 CEOs
10. Southern Methodist University – 5 CEOs
11. University of Southern California – 4 CEOs
12. New York University – 4 CEOs
Moreover, when assessing these numbers, keep in mind that certain schools, like Harvard, Standard, Columbia, Penn and Chicago are known for their MBA programs. In other words, those are places people go after they have degrees and are already on the rise. You would think that would mean that most top CEOs would have a degree from one of those programs. Yet, the numbers don’t show that. In fact, the low number of CEOs with such a degree is actually kind of shocking.
What this suggests is that Big Business is not a closed system where only those who went to the right schools need apply. How does this matter politically? Well, it tells us to stop looking at universities as the cause of the current business culture. Harvard is not the boogeyman controlling all things as some want you to believe. Instead, this means the problem with Big Business’s attitude on loyalty to America and advocating crony socialism is not coming from Harvard, it’s coming from elsewhere. And fixing it will require more than bashing Harvard.
The second thing to note is that the regional bias isn’t as high as one would expect either. While there is a northeastern bias here, as one would expect, it’s certainly not dominant. Of these 94, 5 come from Texas, 15 come from California, and 12 come from Chicago. Moreover, the “northeast” breaks down as well, with 8 from Philly, 16 coming from New York and the rest from the New England. What this suggests is that you can come from any region and still reach the top.
All in all, I think this is interesting because it suggests that while there is an obvious benefit to going to an elite school, that benefit is certainly not as big as you would think. And with 82% of CEOs coming from places other than these elite schools, it’s certainly not controlling.
That said, however, there is a warning here for conservative states. Except for SMU, each of the above colleges resides in a liberal state. That has very bad consequences for conservatives. First, it means that the best and the brightest will abandon conservative states for liberal states to go to college. That loss of brainpower and motivation and ability will depress the economies of conservative states. That in turns hurts jobs and depresses incomes in those states. Indeed, the areas around these schools have all become hotbeds of research and economic activity. This is where things get invented, designed and brought to life in America. This is what drives our economy, creates well paying jobs, and attracts more people... and it’s happening in blue states, who are doing it by pulling away the best and the brightest from around the country and the world.
If red states don’t want to be left behind, then conservatives better start thinking of ways to get more red-state colleges on this list. That means investing in colleges, hiring the best professors, making sure they offer programs that attract the best and brightest students from everywhere, cutting costs to students... doing all the things a business does to attract customers... and embracing education again.
This survey is good news because it shows that fears of a Harvard-run economy are false, but it also presents a warning that the best and brightest American kids have reason to go to blue states to start their economic lives.
23 comments:
In a roundabout way, it sorta sticks it to the white privilege myth, as well, since several schools on the list are associated with WASPiness.
True!
You know, I found this really an interesting study. Now, granted, this is only a tiny snapshot of data, but it blows a hole in the conventional wisdom that Big Business gets created in a handful of elite Northeastern schools... especially as one would assume that most of those guys would want to get a Harvard MBA at some point.
That gives me hope that America is much more "broad-based" than people think.
But it also does give us the warning that conservative states must focus on education and must start to push hard if they don't want to keep losing their best and brightest.
To give an example, I think Texas's plan paying tuition for the top 15% of their high school kids is a great example of how to begin to shift this. But ultimately, the key is to build better schools in red states.
Wow. I thought Harvard, Yale and MIT (due to all the big tech companies) produced a much bigger chunk of the Fortune 500.
I'm not surprised Big Business isn't loyal to America or any other country. I don't think it has anything to do with ideology.
In the era of free trade (more or less) businesses have to go where conditions are best for them and hire the workers who offer the best cost to productivity ratio. If they don't they get their butts kicked by the competition.
How many of the CEOs have MBAs?
Although Stanford is in California, I'm not sure I would consider the Hoover Institute to be liberal in the current use of the word. Same goes for University of Chicago. Both have pretty conservative economists in the programs.
It is an interesting statistic to be sure, but very simplistic. To put it into contest, it would be fun to see the entire list of 500 companies, and how they breakout by industry, etc. Typically C.E.O.'s are measured by the Boards on meeting of goals that are usually tied to stock price and growth. The boards are usually made up of fellow C.E.O.'s--- a rather incestuous relationship. The power of the federal government to make things either harder or easier cannot be overlooked, however. Thus, never underestimate the amount of lobbying and ass-kissing that Fortune 500's will do via industry associations, etc.
I should also point out that C.E.O.'s still have to earn their spurs. Nobody gets to the top right out of a masters program. You usually get hired after a STERLING record in lesser jobs, but in some respects, it is not that different than head football coach in the NFL or top division 1 college. Companies prefer a record of success, but get swayed by somebody who has competed at the highest levels.
Anthony, I was shocked as well. I would have guessed that at least half had MBA from one of those schools. These numbers are really shockingly low.
On their loyalty, I don't think it's ideological either. I think it's all about money. They can make more money being a world company rather than an American company. And they don't mind using and abusing whatever laws they/government benefits/tax treatments they can to maximize their money.
Koshcat, I don't have that data. I don't think this study was meant as much more than a puff piece. But I think the results are interesting.
In terms of liberal/conservatives, I think most people would be shocked how conservative most of these schools actually are. The problem is that they look at the liberal arts schools at these colleges and then assume that those people speak for the entire school. It's just not true.
But the bigger point to me is that these schools (indeed almost all of the best schools) are in blue states. If red states want to keep up, then they need to start respecting their schools and building them up. The future is in technology and innovation, not in getting someone else to put a factory in your state.
Jed, I agree. I wish there had been more data to go with this, but I don't think this was ever a really serious study. What interested me here though was that none of these top schools was a gatekeeper of sorts that a huge chunk of CEOs had to pass through.
As for the incestuous relationship of boards, that's absolutely true. The business community at the top is very incestuous. And you they absolutely see the government as a tool to be used... and the government sees them as the same. Those are things we should fix. The point to be gleaned from this data in those problems lie elsewhere than colleges, i.e. Harvard didn't create this problem. And it shows that red states need to do their best to get into this game.
In all honesty, the only red state I can think of that ever scores great schools is Texas.
OT: It looks like Russia has thrown Obama a lifeline. They are telling Syria to hand over their chemical weapons to avoid being bombed.
That's actually a solid resolution to this.
It would also save Obama's butt, though John Kerry seems determined to poo-poo the idea.
The administration's response to that lifeline will be very interesting and potentially informative. I'm just hearing now that Obama has tied Iran into the Syria thing. Why do I get the sense that the lifeline will be rejected?
BTW, anyone see Assad walking all over Charlie Rose?
Kerry's response has been to say the Syrians won't agree to it and give Kerry one week to do it. No official word from anyone else at this point.
I didn't the Charlie Rose interview, but he's only tough with conservatives.
IF Obama was a smart man, he would jump at it because it allows him to save face and allows a cooperation between Russia and US. I'm certain China (who for all we know brokered the idea) would be supportive. It is a win-win-win. Even Syria would come out looking cleaner.
As for your specific piece, I think the "red" states have two problems. One is most of the rankings of colleges come from organizations in "blue" states and two, most of the people in "red" states are more interested in the football team record than the number of CEOs came out of the school.
Koshcat, He should absolutely jump at it. This could be a win-win-win for everyone but the rebels. Obama gets an escape hatch from his own mistake. Russia looks more important. Syria gets away with it. And nothing changes on the ground to help al Qaeda. It's like a genuine reset button.
Is he smart enough to grab this? Good question.
On the colleges, I don't really disagree with the rating organizations. There is other data which shows that these schools attract the kids with the highest test scores, they tend to have more professors with awards, they have bigger endowments, etc. All of that does create a virtuous circle which keeps helping these schools stay on top.
That won't be easy to overcome and it will take time -- these schools have all been 100 years in the making. But it can be done and I think Texas's plan to let the top 15% of it's kids to an instate school for free is a great start. That won't keep them all, but it will keep more of them, and that will boost those schools, which could well be the start of a the process.
I think the real problem is the second point you raise. The emphasis in a lot of red areas is on sports or taxpayer cost rather than quality -- you should have seen the screaming around here when UCCS wanted to expand. That needs to change if people want to fix this. They need to invest in their schools and then create an environment that encourages not only better students to come (from all over the world) but keeps them in the area after they graduate.
Which came first, the big university system or the blue state culture? Judging from my experience in California, I'd say the latter.
K, I don't follow your point. Are you suggesting that red states should not have colleges because they might bring blue culture?
Given how much Kerry how downplayed the size of the strike, if I were Syria I'd take the strike and then just move on with life rather than give up my chemical weapons.
Sounds like the strike would hurt Obama (who the Republicans would then happily try to impeach, though that would work out about as well as Clinton's impeachment did if the Republicans were lucky) more than Assad.
Anthony, It depends on what Assad wants. If he wants a more clear hand to do what he wants, this might be the way to do it... especially if the Russians promise him something. World support for attacking him (what little there is of it) would vanish if he went along with this as well.
But it sounds like Obama isn't planning to even follow up with this offer, which is kind of stupid.
And you're right, I'm sure there are some who will scream impeachment... they've done it with every other issue.
So now Obama seems to be claiming that this was his idea after all... the one they've been disavowing all day.
My head is spinning.
Are you suggesting that red states should not have colleges because they might bring blue culture?
If red state educational establishments were as conspiratorial as the progressives, then they'd be searching out top rank conservative professors, spend the money necessary to hire them and make sure their departments were comfortably in the power of the conservatives in terms of hiring new professors.
More likely, since conservatives don't seem to "get it", the red state colleges are still in the hands of the progressive left but with limited funds can't do the kind of damage the elite colleges can. Just adding money to such an institution just makes it more powerful and subsequently a more attractive indoctrination center for the state's college best students. Given a couple of generations of that and you've got most of your state's educational, cultural and political leaders products of that system. The rest follows automatically.
K, that's the old "we shouldn't play b/c the other team cheats" argument. And as far as who doesn't "get it," it's the conservative punditry who constantly bashes and mocks education, dissuades their followers from entering the field, and pretends that they can solve all our learning problems with a handful of boring, poorly-ghost-written books that you can pre-order now on the website!
K,
So where do we educate our professionals? Our Doctors. lawyers, etc.
Kit
tryanmax: You say the conservative punditry doesn't "get it" either? I agree completely. It annoys me that the Big Hollywood credo is that culture is upstream of politics when it should be education is upstream of culture (which is upstream of politics).
The only conservative "pundit" I know who "gets it" is David Horowitz and he's definitely not mainstream.
Kit:The same place they're being educated now - in leftist indoctrination centers. Giving more money to leftist indoctrination centers just because they happen to be located in a red state is not helpful, in fact it hurts.
1. Address and fix the blue culture in your university system.
2. THEN give push the money in to raise the quality to the point where you can compete with the Ivy elitists.
Check it:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Long-March-Cultural-Revolution/dp/1893554309
Post a Comment