From what I recall, Stanford accepts roughly 1% of applicants to the Computer Science program, compared with just over 10% for the University as a whole, making it one of the most competitive programs in the nation.
On a side note, my alma mater, the University of Southern California, accepts roughly 25% of students as a whole, and a slightly lower percentage of computer science students (though I can't find specific numbers).
I can't speak to knowing a large volume of entrepreneurs at USC, but I do know a few. The school itself has been making an impressive dedication to increasing entrepreneurship, however, especially in the Viterbi school of engineering. Mark Stevens, of Sequoia, recently funded a center for technology commercialization designed to help students build businesses out of research projects, and there are several student groups devoted to similar pursuits.
Los Angeles is also not the valley, but it turns out that it is a decent alternative, I would say at least as much so as any other major city in the U.S.
I'm not saying you should go to USC necessarily, but I enjoyed myself while I was there. One thing is certain, though, it is very different from Stanford.
From what I recall, Stanford accepts roughly 1% of applicants to the Computer Science program, compared with just over 10% for the University as a whole, making it one of the most competitive programs in the nation.
That may be true for Ph.D. students, but not for undergraduates. Undergraduate applications are reviewed without regards to major. You'll have an equal chance of getting in whether you express interest in CS or English. The Stanford admissions website confirms this. [1]
The Ph.D. program may have acceptance rates approaching 1%, although I don't really think it's that low. Also, the master's program accepts a significantly higher percentage of applicants than the doctoral program.
[1] "All applicants apply to Stanford through the Office of Undergraduate Admission, not to a particular school or department within the University, and Stanford does not give preference to any major." http://admission.stanford.edu/applying/1_8_faqs.html
You're right, in that I cannot find anyone claiming the significantly lower figure for CS admissions in particular. Even at 10%, it is among the most competitive programs in the country. Both Williams and Amherst, the top two liberal arts colleges in the US, have over 15% admissions, while Yale and Harvard come in usually between 8% and 10%.
On a side note, I have some doubt that the admissions process is truly blind to your stated major of interest. These schools do have a desire to maintain balance between their programs.
They're not blind, but you can also put down anything you want, including "undecided". I was certain I wanted to be a physics major when I applied to college. Things change.
Stanford / Harvard / MIT. I'd give the edge to Stanford because it's in the middle of entrepreneur heaven. You could also major in Symbolic Systems instead of CS.
Location is important, as well as talented faculty and networking opportunities, which gives these three schools an edge.
But it's a mistake to think that these places have a monopoly on ideas or are stepping stones to great things in this business. A lot of Ivy Plus types get admitted to Harvard or Stanford on the basis of strong standardized test scores, which are not a good indicator of creativity. I know of a late '90s Harvard College CS grad who hasn't done anything remarkable with software development or Web technologies. An MIT grad I briefly worked with had some interesting insights, but many of her ideas came from other people.
It's also important to recognize that someone with skills and a great idea can develop very special technologies no matter where they are studying CS -- or even if they are not formally studying anything. Shaun Fanning didn't come up with Napster at Harvard, he developed it at his dorm room at Northeastern. Jaron Lanier (the guy who coined the term "virtual reality" and developed many early applications) was a student researcher at New Mexico State University before heading off to the Valley.
Bottom line: Seek out those schools with great faculty and programs that interest you, but remembver that success depends on the ideas bouncing around your head, not the name of the university on your resume.
I don't think any intelligent person thinks these places have a monopoly on ideas or a guaranteed path to success. Your point samples on MIT/Harvard people don't buttress your argument any more than my encounters with very creative people who were so smart that strong standardized scores were a natural offshoot of their abilities. We can say there are both bright people and uncreative people at universities.
Yes, people can develop no matter where they study. I don't see anyone arguing that other places are the entrepreneurial equivalent of raising babies without light. The post's question was "best" place for a given aspiring tech entrepreneur.
Location is key because "great faculty and programs" aren't just within the university. They include the guest angel investor speaking at a seminar, the Ruby hackers-entrepreneurs at the local gathering, the founders presenting at one of the many local showcases. They include events like YC Startup School, which I would probably not attend if I went to school in Virginia.
Bottom line: Go to the place most conducive to your entrepreneurial aspirations that you can attend without troubling debt. Then make the most of your choice.
I would disagree slightly here. EE is like majoring in assembly language. It is the wrong paradigm for value creation these days because most hardware startups require large capital expenditures upfront.
EE training also forces you into a mode of thought that focuses on concrete implementation rather than making what people want.
Turing taught us that any machine implemented in digital logic can be implemented with a basic microprocessor. Knowledge of transistor transfer functions and Nyquist plots are useless in a startup context these days.
Computer Science.
Good luck.