4 ms·
Care to explain? :)
by mikeytown2 17y ago
Care to explain? :)
- samratjp 17y agoThe physicist Werner Heisenberg was once asked if he knew where Stanford University was located. "I believe it is on the west coast of the United States, not far from San Francisco. There is also another school nearby, and they steal each other's axes," he replied, referring to Stanford's rivalry with the University of California, Berkeley. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_University http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_University) Lucky? Sun, Yahoo, Google, Loopt as a small sample. For god's sake, there is a Sequoia Hall on the map! :-)
- wonsungi 17y agoAlso highly relevant to why 165 University would be lucky: downtown Palo Alto is within walking distance from "the quad" on Stanford campus (just down Palm Drive).
- samratjp 17y agonostrademons, you have a terrific memory and you are right. But, this particular thread calls for Silicon Valley. Let the poor school have it's moment in the SUN :-)
- nostrademons 17y agoActually, I just looked at the "famous alumni" lists on Wikipedia and filtered for a.) companies that we've heard of where b.) the founder's MIT degree was somewhat relevant to the company. There was some fascinating...TIL that Campbell Soup took off through the skills of an MIT-trained chemist who invented condensed soup, and that the National Enquirer was turned into a tabloid by an MIT-trained engineer who had worked for the CIA's psychological warfare unit. I can just see the conspiracy theories fly on that one.
- samratjp 17y agoDefinitely, MIT has spun off some great companies to be sure. What caught my attention the most was Campbell's soup - thanks for that share. Wouldn't have ever guessed that.
- jaybol 17y agoWow that is pretty incredible to hear the story of the National Enquirer. I just thought it was where Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith got their leads for hunting down aliens!
- hga 17y agoUnderwood went to MIT to solve their problems with canning and the result was making the process scientific and safe and the birth of food science and technology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Underwood_Company#Involvement_with_MIT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Underwood_Company#Invol... MIT's Food and Nutrition department was very successful until it became Applied Biology and committed the sin of raising more money than the Chemistry and Biology departments, at which point administrators who were professors in those departments figuratively killed it in the dead of night (although recently another Applied Biology department was evidently started).
- cperciva 17y agoI think you mean "let the poor school have its moment in the ORACLE". :-)
- nostrademons 17y agoCouldn't you make the same argument about Harvard (Microsoft, Facebook, Broderbund, Electronic Arts, OKCupid, not to mention Polaroid, Merck, and Weezer) or MIT (Hewlett-Packard, Thinking Machines, Texas Instruments, Qualcomm, Visicalc, Lotus, Akamai, Fairchild, Intel, 3Com, DEC, ETrade, Bose, Kurzweil, and iRobot, not to mention McDonnell Douglas, Campbell Soup, Boston, and the National Enquirer)?
- srini 17y agoHewlett-Packard: I'd give that one to Stanford way more than MIT. From Wikipedia: "Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard graduated in electrical engineering from Stanford University in 1935. The company originated in a garage in nearby Palo Alto during a fellowship they had with a past professor, Frederick Terman at Stanford during the Great Depression. Terman was considered a mentor to them in forming Hewlett-Packard." If anyone's interested, here's a fuller list of SV companies founded by Stanford-affiliated people: http://www.stanford.edu/group/wellspring/economic.html http://www.stanford.edu/group/wellspring/economic.html
- hga 17y agoHmmm, you're right, their formal education at MIT only includes Hewlett getting his Masters there with his BS and Ph.D. at Stanford (Packard got his BS and Masters at Stanford, all this according to Wikipedia). As far as I know they did feel some affinity with MIT, but it sounds like the Stanford connection is overwhelmingly dominant.