I think the same article could be written about lots of top ten schools, particularly the larger ones. Take UCSD for example: top 10 CS program, great city for

I think the same article could be written about lots of top ten schools, particularly the larger ones. Take UCSD for example: top 10 CS program, great city for young people, decent amount of angels/VCs floating around La Jolla, huge city (LA) only an hour away with access to even more capital... yet there hasn't been a major tech SD startup since mp3.com. Big schools do not foster startups. I wonder if it's because smaller schools have more in common with startups? They have smaller staffs, leaner budgets, and typically fewer ridiculous processes. Key example: I just applied to Stanford and UTCS for my PhD. Stanford has clear info on deadlines and sent me an automated email reminder a few days before the app was due. UT Austin requires you to fill out two separate applications (one for the general UT system and another for UTCS), with different deadlines for each, inconsistent deadline info between the two systems, requiring duplicate information, and setting up a convoluted group of user accounts. It is very hard to get big schools to understand startups. Virginia Tech was pushing very hard to encourage starting more tech companies, but their approach was to build a gigantic Corporate Research Center with isolated buildings and establishing formal "partnerships" with established or funded companies. Projects like the BT transit app get buzz only after they are a hit; and they don't try to compound the momentum by getting an order of magnitude more students working on their own apps, but rather let everything die down and force the few startup-friendly professors to start all over again. As with most big organizations, the problems are fairly obvious. It's just nearly impossible to get them to change anything, especially since the main issue is a lack of willingness to change things.