<p>Half of the growth of the entire US in the late 90’s probably did come from Silicon Valley. On the other hand, at least half of the tech recession of the early 2000’s also came from Silicon Valley. I say that not simply to proffer a rejoinder, but to point out that if you want to take credit for the good, you gotta also assume the blame for the bad. lLet’s face it. To say that you were a Silicon Valley dotcom entrepreneur is to invite scorn and pity nowadays, rather than the awe and jealousy of yester-year. You want the glory when things go well? You gotta also be willing to take the blame when things go badly. </p>
<p>Now, to rtkysg, I think we may be re-treading old ground that we covered back in the old CC forum. Basically, I would argue that prestige is a far more pliable concept than a lot of people seem to think it is. The best case in point is Stanford, which not that long ago, really was a no-name regional backwater of little consequence. For the first half of its existence, Stanford was a weak school, and during that time Berkeley was far and away the best school in Norcal. It really wasn’t that long ago in history that Stanford had little prestige. Stanford wasn’t born elite, it became elite through stellar management. </p>
<p>Also, I’m not quite sure that I can entirely agree with your characterization of the competition between MIT and Caltech. You seem to be saying that MIT has the benefit of age and ‘old-school’ prominence that Caltech does not. I don’t know about that. It is true that MIT is about 25 years older than Caltech. However, the history seems to suggest that Caltech became a highly prominent research university years before MIT did. For the first half of its life, MIT was basically a vocational school of little prestige. However, by the 1930’s, Caltech had already established itself as one of the premier leading research lights in the country. Let me put it to you this way. By the late 30’s, Caltech could count 3 Nobel Prizes among its current faculty (Millikan, Morgan, Anderson). I haven’t been able to verify this yet, but I believe that at that time, Caltech could count more Nobel Prize winners among its faculty than any other American school at the time. Harvard did have 3 winners, but TW Richards died in '28. Keep in mind that before WW2, the US was not a science/tech superpower and most Nobel Prizes were won by Europeans. Also keep in mind that at the time, Harvard and the rest of the Ivy League were still slowly transitioning themselves from the upper-crust gentlemen’s finishing schools that they used to be into the research powerhouses that they are today. MIT faculty wouldn’t get its first Nobel Prize winner until either 1944 or 1968 (depending on whether you want to count staff members of the MIT Radiation Lab as bona-fide MIT faculty members or not). The point is that Caltech quickly established itself as arguably the premier place in the US for big-league science research before MIT had become prominent. It was MIT looking up to Caltech, not vice versa. It was WW2 and subsequent gigantic Pentagon-directed defense spending (i.e. the RAND corporation) that spurred MIT to tech greatness. </p>
<p>I also don’t think that the MIT/Caltech schism has anything to do with funding. Funding and rich donors do explain Harvard to some extent. But MIT? I have my doubts. As of 2002, Caltech had a $1.3 billion endowment, whereas MIT had a $6 billion endowment. Hence, on a per-capita basis (Caltech has ~ 2000 students, MIT has ~10,000), it’s basically a wash. </p>
<p>Let’s face it. Neither Caltech nor MIT really attract the truly rich. Truly rich people are going to send their kids to Harvard where they’re going to major in something easy/creampuffy and basically get 4 years of finishing-school (just like in the old days) so that they can then come out and be ready to run daddy’s (or mommy’s) company. MIT and Caltech are for those people who haven’t quite made it yet and who are therefore willing to work hard to try to establish themselves.</p>
<p>Now obviously the above paragraph was a sweeping generalization. But I think you get my point. If you’re truly rich, you probably don’t want to have to put up with the ridiculous workload that either MIT or Caltech will throw at you. Why should you work that hard, if you don’t have to? Hence, it will always be true that places like Harvard will have more rich donors than the 'Tutes will.</p>