+1. Then HBS or McKinsey should be in the lead here when compared to any other organization. Point is that PayPal mafia planted the seeds of the the social media revolution; unsure if DE Shaw is even a close second on impact.
You think so? I count 4 or 5 billionaire McL alumni -- Louis Gerstner (probably), Michael Pearson (for now), Sheryl Sandberg, George Gillett Jr., Silvio Scaglia. Maybe more on an absolute basis, but it's out of 10,000's of alumni.
Both India and China have a lot of diversity and are home to 40% of humanity. A fairer immigration system WOULD see a lot more Indians and Chinese.
If this is defensible, then racial quotas in schools (e.g., capping proportion of Jews) are also defensible by using the same logic as "you're now penalizing everyone else."
I'd rather have US as the home of the best and the brightest, not based on whether your parents were born in Mongolia or 100 miles away in Inner Mongolia that happens to be in China.
Sorry, can't really see how the moral argument works.
> Both India and China have a lot of diversity and are home to 40% of humanity. A fairer immigration system WOULD see a lot more Indians and Chinese.
However, you've then penalized someone born in in Mongolia, simply because they come from a less populous country, vs the opposite that is happening now.
I'm not claiming there is a moral argument to be made: the way the US residency program is implemented is neither moral or immoral.
> I'd rather have US as the home of the best and the brightest, not based on whether your parents were born in Mongolia or 100 miles away in Inner Mongolia that happens to be in China.
How do you qualify "best" & "brightest?" I'm a 1st generation US Citizen (of Indian decent). Both my parents immigrated here. My dad was drafted for Vietnam and then continued to serve in the US Army for 20 years, and my mom was a lunch lady. My parents don't have CS degrees, and instead worked blue collar jobs to make sure we could have a better life than they did.
C Christine Fair is a Professor at Georgetown and at one time was offered the role of Asstt Secy for South Asia. It's a comedy that the lack of a dedicated South Asia cadre can have near disastrous consequences for US foreign policy.
1. His stake might be all options or at best illiquid stock so unsure if it's comparable to "cash"
2. He's not on the best terms with his VCs and owns <5% of company: might be on the verge of getting kicked out.
3. Yadav already made his $$ with each round; he just bought a Porsche.
"I am a 20 year resident currently in the process of being "de-located", and will be leaving San Francisco in a few weeks, destination unknown. A little known secret about the tech industry is that if you're not in your 20s or early 30s, you are basically unemployable. It's a great gig for the kiddies, but if you're an adult with a family and responsibilities, you'll learn all about the magic of "at will" employment. Not to mention that many/most of these companies are run by financial criminals/sociopaths who could care less about anything other than lining their own pockets."
"Students are asking, "Where's the place that I can drive innovation? Where's the place that I can have the most impact?"
Sounds like those students are just rationalizing. They're going into tech mainly because the tech field has been on fire lately, and the risk of trying out the tech field is low. After all, they're still getting paid pretty well.
Once the tech bubble bursts, they'll be hovering around fields that pay the most.
You are not going to be driving innovation by working for Linkedin, Facebook, and Microsoft.
I note that Bubble 1.0 was full of fresh young business school grads. At the time, I thought of them as "the locusts". It was worth a lean year or two to get rid of all of them (and all of the other people) who came here looking for the big payout. The people who stayed were the ones who were serious about the field.
It's a little sad that I wouldn't mind another tech downturn, but that's where I am.
