It is unfortunate that so much trust is put into the numbers from this report. These CB Insights numbers seem as accurate as the Startup Genome project, which is not very accurate. We have tried to contact CB Insights numerous times to understand how they got them because they simply don't make sense. We have gotten no call back unfortunately. As soon as we saw them, we did a quick back of the envelop calculation of what we knew off sub-set of MIT companies and found them to be off for MIT by at least 2.5x. This calls into great question the data. We want to promote entrepreneurship and are much less wrapped up in the ratings headlines game than we are about wanting to learn something to improve our service to out students. For this to be possible from these reports, the data has to be credible which it is not from what we can tell. It is also true that we measure output and not inputs at MIT as they are much more important so the proper measurement is economic impact (companies, jobs, revenue, etc.). This is not to say that Stanford is not wonderful - it is and we all work together to promote entrepreneurship for our students. It is a common cause that unites us. All I will say is that in this thirst for "rankings", we are unfortunately seeing a lot of unrigorous data analysis.
As we unveil EE Times’ 2015 Silicon 60 list, journalist & Silicon 60 researcher Peter Clarke hosts a conversation on startups in the electronics industry. Panelists Dan Armbrust (investment firm Silicon Catalyst), Andrew Kau (venture capital firm Walden International), and Stan Boland (successful serial entrepreneur, former CEO of Neul, Icera) join in the live debate.