"Silicon Valley really is more innovative, study finds" - Blog Response

     Lisa M. Krieger expresses her passionate appreciation in an informative article regarding the unstoppable momentum Silicon Valley has made through its high energy in start up companies. Silicon Valley is a Mecca for startup, surely, there has to be a secret to why so many startups are successful. "Startups in Menlo Par, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Sunnyvale have 20 times the average quality of the median and 90 times that of the lowest ranked cities in California" (Krieger 1). Scott Stern, co-author of the MIT and National Bureau of Economic Research stated "We have a habitat here that creates a supportive environment, and we have the infrastructure -- the VC, the lawyers, and accountants," said Scott. Krieger allows Stern to take the lead in her article, expressing that the close vicinity between the lawyers, accountants, and other assets really add an incredible amount of value to the area, creating an eco-system of closely tied powerhouses. This monstrous powerhouse, in my personal opinion, is what drives the energy of the valley. Its a self defined environment, totally cool, and impeccably driven.
       I would like to adress this notion that is mentioned in the article however. The assumption is one can measure growth of these startups by "meaning". For instance, if your measuring true growth by the characteristics that define a company, and linking them to the amount of an IPO, to find a correlation; there is an expectation to find meaning. The entrepreneurial hotspots represent a great depiction of the evolving cloud of energy that lingers on top of the valley. Krieger elaborates throughout the article inferring Stern and his colleague's philosophy on measuring "meaningful growth" will change how Silicon Valley is approached by other startups, and change how entrepreneurs start their journey. However, I'm not really sold on the whole idea that high quality startups are absolutely revolved around the laboratories, because many start ups are not founded off the principle of getting assistance from conglomerates of databases across the neighboring fence. What I'm saying is, is I find it to be a very logical and concise article; however it bulges with bias because it does not establish more than 5 groups that have tested this theory to its limits.
       On the flip side, Krieger elaborates further with more than credible sources referencing the anticipation MIT has to get their hands wet in the area. Its an interesting inference, and after digging deeper through this article you since Cambridge's intention to congregate with executives from Silicon Valley. My take on the issue? I dig it! I think any business person would do it, but not any person would know how to do it! MIT is one of the most prominent institutions in the country. This goes back to my previous point, start ups do not revolve around laboratories, they successfully operate off quantitative analytics and data. MIT is more data and research driven from a quantitative perspective.
All-in-all the article is a good one, and I am eager to see how the energy of silicon valley correlates, hopefully positive, with the newest intentions of MIT. MIT really has few failures once a strong evaluation is done. I'm sure the future is going to be full of new things from the joint-efoo