Are CEO's with top college degrees better than the average ones?

the thousands of wait-listed would-be MBAs who may not get the chance to go to their dream B-school might want to draw inspiration from the following group of CEOs. Not only did they not get graduate degrees, they didn't get undergraduate degrees -- and some never even attended college. Of course, not having a degree didn't stop them from being a big name on campus. You'll find Alfred Taubman's name at Brown, Harvard, the University of Michigan, and Lawrence Technological University; at least one building on each campus bears his name, although the retail magnate and philanthropist never finished college. Read on to learn who else made it into corporate top spots without the benefit of a bachelor's degree. 1. Dennis Albaugh 2. Paul Allen 3. Richard Branson 4. Maverick Carter 5. John Paul DeJoria 6. Michael Dell 7. Felix Dennis 8. Barry Diller 9. Bill Gates 10. Mukesh "Micky" Jagtiani farve7.com

Maybe we can consider it.. but we can't conclude that CEO's from top colleges are always better than the average ones. Individual capability always affect the decision of any person. And it doesn't depend on top colleges...

Academic qualification alone can not be the parameter to judge a person.one who achieves should always be considered better.

Mr.joshi,  Absolutely what you said is true. Everything comes only with experience & in that experience one should have shown his dedication & complete interest. 

I always tell people that I studied in the 'Best' school in Dehradun. First reactions are Oh! Doon School, and I am forced to correct their impression  "No it is St Thomas'." Because I believe so.Doon School is a Brand.

I have quoted the above instance in support of Akhilesh's argument as this belief is a personal value which I believe no other institution except where you have learnt what you have can impart. It is not important where you have studied, or what unless you have developed the ability to add value in your work. This is a personal trait built on the ability to be receptive. Institutions are centres of learning and "Top or Bottom" ratings are just a means of branding them with a commercial perspective. If one is unscrupulous in his /her dealings, will it matter which intitution he disgraces? and would he remain CEO for long if made one? What matters is Ethics, Morality and Commitment in one's job.

CEO concept is different in different organisations.Some where it is CEO,may be President, may be MD. The most outstanding CEO/MD of India was Russi Modi of TISCO, who was BA. To run a organisation, it needs knowledge/wisdom/intelegency over some basic qualification.

Ms Jyoti, I would like to say as you rightly said that CEO from a reputed institute is expected to perform better. But it is seen it is not always correct. The person who utilises his skills as per the changing enviornment to promote his company will always be a winner. He may sometimes take wrong steps but that is challenge and competition. Degrees from repute institution is a paracosm.

Jyoti the average CEO will be no different from an excellent CEO when it comes to balence sheet.

For everything there is a budjet and the expenditure and income should ideally be as per that budjet. The CEO should be responsible for budjet accheivement and work culture.

Take the case of Mr. Pandit, the CEO of City Bank who has been termed as a below average CEO but once he has accheived the results i.e profits every body now saying look at him probably the best.

So the concept change with the market for the same man.

No i do not agree with this. Since whether or not a company's CEO holds a college degree from a top school has no bearing on the firm's long-term performance, when it comes to company's poor performance, CEOs with degrees from the nation's most prestigious schools are no safer than the average CEO.The Board should be cautious enough for not giving too much focus on individual education rather try to assess the individual caliber to lead the company from front in crisis as well as optimizing the performance of the organization.

No, I dont agree with that.

It is true that preference always goes to the chosen one, however, performance never comes with the background.

Not Mojorly.

CEO needs money too for doing/innovate/add value something.

Without money he might be a big zero (0)

Having tag of a prominent institute is one thing and performing practically is completely different thing. Presence of leadership qualities and skill set in an individual are more important than the tag of a popular institute. These  qualities can be found even in a common man. If given an opportunity such an individual can do wonders.              

No...I don't agree with that. CEOs with degrees from the nation's most prestigious schools are no safer than the average CEO. Too much emphasis on an individual's education shouldn't be the main criteteria when trying to assess their ability to lead the company and maximize shareholder value.

They are as prone to risks as their average counterparts....