Here's Eric Schmidt, 2012 UC Berkeley Alumnus of the Year, Executive chairman of Google and UC Berkeley Electrical Engineering and Computer Science M.S. '79, Ph.D. '82



Here he is giving this year's UC Berkeley commencement address earlier this month:



Here he is receiving his alumnus of the year honor:



And here is Schmidt in last month's New Yorker in an article titled, "Is Stanford Too Close to Silicon Valley?"

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/04/30/120430fa_fact_auletta?currentPage=all

Quote:

---

If the Ivy League was the breeding ground for the lites of the American Century, Stanford is the farm system for Silicon Valley. When looking for engineers, Schmidt said, Google starts at Stanford. Five per cent of Google employees are Stanford graduates.[LEFT][COLOR=#000000]

---

[/COLOR][/LEFT]

Well, does UC Berkeley reach out to people like Schmidt, and actively try to foster networking relationships with people in the corporate world like him?

LethalFang;841894933 said:

---

Well, does UC Berkeley reach out to people like Schmidt, and actively try to foster networking relationships with people in the corporate world like him?

---

Eric Schmidt is good buddies with UC Berkeley College of Engineering Dean S. Shankar Sastry.

They were students together in the engineering school in the 70s and 80s.

And Schmidt kids him in the 2nd video.

LINK: http://www.businessinsider.com/10-charts-that-explain-the-state-of-googles-employees-today-2012-3#not-surprisingly-most-employees-come-from-san-francisco-bay-area-schools--like-stanford-4

Of course they start there. The google twins are Stanford men after all.

To shine a little light on the issue with some of my own observations in the field:

The CS department at Cal heavily emphasizes concepts, theory, and the like, which is great for preparing students for grad school and academia, but it skimps on the practice of paradigms that translates to industry. Conversely, Stanfurd tends to put a huge emphasis on practical programming (and entrepreneurship). I know at my company, for instance, the Stanfurd grads tend to be able to hit the ground running and pump out features very quickly. Cal grads generally ace the interviews, but we've had issues where very very smart candidates that were hired had trouble taking vague business requirements and using that to build an app from scratch.

HaasBear04;841894965 said:

---

Of course they start there. The google twins are Stanford men after all.

---

This was exactly my thought. Furd Alums create Google and Google goes to the Furd for its talent. What is so weird about that?

CALiforniALUM;841895006 said:

---

This was exactly my thought. Furd Alums create Google and Google goes to the Furd for its talent. What is so weird about that?

---

Exactly, they go the Furd first, but in the end, they hire as many Cal grads as Stanford grads.

If you were looking for employees would you rather drive five minutes to find them or an hour? I think that is your answer.

That quote is taken a bit out of context to make a certain point to their theme.

Regardless, company founders are always biased to the schools they attended when it come to hiring. This is unwritten mandate. This is fact.

Despite this, I DO know from high ranking Google execs that they can't get enough of Cal grads and are tremendously impressed for their high intellect and hard work. The campus is littered with Cal grads...many wearing their school colors on a daily basis. Sometimes it almost feels you're at a Berkeley satellite campus from all the Cal gear you see.

I don't know which charts are legit (those chart numbers seem generously rounded out), but I've heard more than once that Cal has the most employees working at Google.

pingpong2;841894987 said:

---

To shine a little light on the issue with some of my own observations in the field:

The CS department at Cal heavily emphasizes concepts, theory, and the like, which is great for preparing students for grad school and academia, but it skimps on the practice of paradigms that translates to industry. Conversely, Stanfurd tends to put a huge emphasis on practical programming (and entrepreneurship). I know at my company, for instance, the Stanfurd grads tend to be able to hit the ground running and pump out features very quickly. Cal grads generally ace the interviews, but we've had issues where very very smart candidates that were hired had trouble taking vague business requirements and using that to build an app from scratch.

---

Yeah, I'd have liked that better. I've kind of wondered what it'd take to get a few 'tracks' going in the engineering school... research/theory, practical and entrepreneurship. As you say my BSME experience was plenty good on theory but had far too few lab classes, didn't really develop tools like CAD/finite element/fluid flow programs that could hav ebeen helpful for me (we were exposed to em but it wasn't a major part), and i only had one class that at all considered the business end of things.

pingpong2;841894987 said:

---

To shine a little light on the issue with some of my own observations in the field:

The CS department at Cal heavily emphasizes concepts, theory, and the like, which is great for preparing students for grad school and academia, but it skimps on the practice of paradigms that translates to industry. Conversely, Stanfurd tends to put a huge emphasis on practical programming (and entrepreneurship). I know at my company, for instance, the Stanfurd grads tend to be able to hit the ground running and pump out features very quickly. Cal grads generally ace the interviews, but we've had issues where very very smart candidates that were hired had trouble taking vague business requirements and using that to build an app from scratch.

---

That's interesting. I have had exactly the opposite experience with engineering grads. Maybe CS is different. Masters and PhD's are a bit different where I have luck with both, but undergrad has been Cal grads by far. Not sure there's a difference in smarts, but work ethic is completely different.

Cal definitely has a recognition of what you describe. My daughter is in mechanical engineering. They now have required classes for hands on work. The lab is pretty impressive and the equipment beats most companies I have seen.

SDBear44;841895130 said:

---

That's interesting. I have had exactly the opposite experience with engineering grads. Maybe CS is different. Masters and PhD's are a bit different where I have luck with both, but undergrad has been Cal grads by far. Not sure there's a difference in smarts, but work ethic is completely different.

Cal definitely has a recognition of what you describe. My daughter is in mechanical engineering. They now have required classes for hands on work. The lab is pretty impressive and the equipment beats most companies I have seen.

---

That's good to hear about the current state of Berkeley Engineering.

I've heard similarly that the CS department has been putting some more emphasis on practical languages over the last year. In the past, students would start off learning Lisp/Scheme, which is a great way to introduce them to functional languages and build a strong foundation. However, knowing how to program in Scheme is more than worthless when it comes to industry, which might explain why the school has shifted the introductory CS classes to use Python. I feel like the department is still catching up to Stanfurd in the sense of preparing students for industry, but it's a definite step in the right direction.

As an aside, I feel like Berkeley has always placed a huge focus on a "giving back to the world" mentality, such as emphasizing open-source development, which is good for the programming community in general. However, it's a double-edged sword because the school loses out on potential donations from student who might have made it big had they sold their software for-profit. At Stanfurd they have classes in the CS department on how to woo VCs and acquire VC funding, the legal proceedings for startups, etc (stuff that Cal professors would generally scoff at). I'm not aware of anything similar being done for Cal students, which is really unfortunate because at the end of the day, Cal could absolutely benefit from having a few students who make it big and feel like they owe their alma mater for the support that they were given.

CALiforniALUM;841895006 said:

---

This was exactly my thought. Furd Alums create Google and Google goes to the Furd for its talent. What is so weird about that?

---

And, it was an article (=good one, too) on Stanford, and NOT Cal, too.

pingpong2;841895167 said:

---

That's good to hear about the current state of Berkeley Engineering.

I've heard similarly that the CS department has been putting some more emphasis on practical languages over the last year. In the past, students would start off learning Lisp/Scheme, which is a great way to introduce them to functional languages and build a strong foundation. However, knowing how to program in Scheme is more than worthless when it comes to industry, which might explain why the school has shifted the introductory CS classes to use Python. I feel like the department is still catching up to Stanfurd in the sense of preparing students for industry, but it's a definite step in the right direction.

As an aside, I feel like Berkeley has always placed a huge focus on a "giving back to the world" mentality, such as emphasizing open-source development, which is good for the programming community in general. However, it's a double-edged sword because the school loses out on potential donations from student who might have made it big had they sold their software for-profit. At Stanfurd they have classes in the CS department on how to woo VCs and acquire VC funding, the legal proceedings for startups, etc (stuff that Cal professors would generally scoff at). I'm not aware of anything similar being done for Cal students, which is really unfortunate because at the end of the day, Cal could absolutely benefit from having a few students who make it big and feel like they owe their alma mater for the support that they were given.

---

This.

Well, for one, it was an article on 'furd (Is Stanford Too Close to Silicon Valley).

Secondly, Brin and Page are from 'furd so you expect a little bent there.

Having been EECS and working at tech startups in Silicon Valley, I do think 'furd has interesting things in their comp sci program that Cal could learn from. I haven't looked at the Cal EECS curriculum lately, but I've seen 'furds and it has modified to address CS modern needs.

But, in reference to the original article, Silicon Valley has more of a bent to 'furd than Cal (slightly so). Part of it is location: Silicon Valley's VCs are all located on Sandhill Road which is down the street from 'furd.

Many of the VCs who work there are 'furd graduates (more so than Cal).

'Furd has been pushing entrepreneurship harder than Cal has. (Cal's making strides in this area.)

With that said, Cal seems to place an emphasis on things like technology in society and the environment not just the hot next mobile internet startup. And while those areas are important, most of the internet buzz has been around consumer web/consumer mobile companies like Facebook and the ilk.

freshfunk;841895264 said:

---

With that said, Cal seems to place an emphasis on things like technology in society and the environment not just the hot next mobile internet startup. And while those areas are important, most of the internet buzz has been around consumer web/consumer mobile companies like Facebook and the ilk.

---

I would argue that for the premier public university in the nation, that's a worthy emphasis.

-R

There you have it. Stanford is a VOCATIONAL SCHOOL similar to DeVry and Trade Tech. Cal is a traditional model explaining not only fundamentals, but exploring theory and getting students to think beyond the end of their collective noses.

I listened to most of Schmidt's speech to the Alumni Assn. I just wish he would de-emphasize the word "Berkeley" and call us what we are: Cal or California.

pingpong2;841895167 said:

---

That's good to hear about the current state of Berkeley Engineering.

I've heard similarly that the CS department has been putting some more emphasis on practical languages over the last year. In the past, students would start off learning Lisp/Scheme, which is a great way to introduce them to functional languages and build a strong foundation. However, knowing how to program in Scheme is more than worthless when it comes to industry, which might explain why the school has shifted the introductory CS classes to use Python. I feel like the department is still catching up to Stanfurd in the sense of preparing students for industry, but it's a definite step in the right direction.

As an aside, I feel like Berkeley has always placed a huge focus on a "giving back to the world" mentality, such as emphasizing open-source development, which is good for the programming community in general. However, it's a double-edged sword because the school loses out on potential donations from student who might have made it big had they sold their software for-profit. At Stanfurd they have classes in the CS department on how to woo VCs and acquire VC funding, the legal proceedings for startups, etc (stuff that Cal professors would generally scoff at). I'm not aware of anything similar being done for Cal students, which is really unfortunate because at the end of the day, Cal could absolutely benefit from having a few students who make it big and feel like they owe their alma mater for the support that they were given.

---

Cal is way behind on this. It's ridiculous.
Even UCSF is offering courses on how to attract VC and Angel fundings for biotech start ups, and is making a serious effort to mingle the VCs with the students.

LethalFang;841895550 said:

---

Cal is way behind on this. It's ridiculous.
Even UCSF is offering courses on how to attract VC and Angel fundings for biotech start ups, and is making a serious effort to mingle the VCs with the students.

---

The Haas Business school offers undergraduate L&S courses in entrepreneurship that are tech focused: http://entrepreneurship.berkeley.edu/students/UGBA96_LS5.html

Here is the Haas website on entrepreneurship: http://entrepreneurship.berkeley.edu/main/index.html

Here are the undergraduate courses offered by Cal's Lester Center for Entrepreneurship: http://entrepreneurship.berkeley.edu/students/ug_courses.html

Cal even has its own start-up incubator "Skydeck": LINK

The lack of immediate proximity to Silicon Valley cannot be helped, but it is not as if Cal is doing nothing.

6bear6;841895447 said:

---

There you have it. Stanford is a VOCATIONAL SCHOOL similar to DeVry and Trade Tech. Cal is a traditional model explaining not only fundamentals, but exploring theory and getting students to think beyond the end of their collective noses.

I listened to most of Schmidt's speech to the Alumni Assn. I just wish he would de-emphasize the word "Berkeley" and call us what we are: Cal or California.

---

Berkeley is the educational brand. Do you put cal on your resume?

chitownbear;841895915 said:

---

The likely reason for this is dealt with elsewhere in this thread.

What I don't understand is the constant worrying and fretting about Stanford and its achievements. It's a great school, every bit as good in many fields, and sometimes better than Cal. I've learned to cope with that. It doesn't hurt my self-esteem.

---

I agree, and there is some of that, but this thread is more about a Cal alum giving them props instead of his alma matter. USC alums hire USC alums just because. Personally, I'd like to see him give props to Stanford and get a shout out to us too (since they hire as many from Cal as they do Stanford).