U-preneurs : Value Creation and the Student Entrepreneur

U-preneurs : Value Creation and the Student Entrepreneur Thema Monroe-White, Doctoral Student in Science & Technology Policy Georgia Institute of Technology 685 Cherry Street Atlanta, GA 30332-0345 Tel: 404-889-9778 E-mail: tmw3@gatech.edu Objectives: The purpose of this study is two-fold. First is to assess the formal and informal college and/or university interventions that encourage entrepreneurship in Georgia. Second is to explore the economic outcomes of student entrepreneurship in Georgia. Prior Practices: Entrepreneurship is on the rise. In 2009, U.S. entrepreneurial activity reached its highest levels in 14 years. Further, Georgia experienced the largest increase in its rate of entrepreneurial activity over the past decade among all fifty states (Fairlie, 2010). At the same time there has been an increase in entrepreneurship education programs and courses across many U.S. universities dedicated to producing new venture firms (Clark, Davis, & Harnish, 1984; Kuratko, 2005; Weaver, Turner Jr., McKaskill, & Solomon, 2002). The economic impact on entrepreneurial activity has also been well established (Acs, 2009; Gries, 2010). This increase in U.S. entrepreneurial activity may be due to either an individual s perception of a high potential opportunity or necessity-based enterprise creation forced on an individual as a result of sluggish present-day economic conditions. Regardless of these conditions, previous studies have suggested that new ventures created after entrepreneurship course interventions contribute substantially to the economic sector in terms of new jobs and overall sales (Clark, et al., 1984). Entrepreneurship education is still relatively new to higher education. In 1985 there were 250 entrepreneurship courses in the U.S. and now there are over 5,000 such courses offered in two and four year universities (Schramm, 2006). In fact there has been a 38% increase in freshman student interest in business since 1976 (CIRP data 2008) and over a 400% increase in entrepreneurship courses offered in the U.S. (Gartner, 1994). Not only can entrepreneurship be taught, but it is a worthwhile endeavor to teach for students and their institutions. Formal entrepreneurship education interventions aimed at promoting entrepreneurship among students have mixed results (Clark, et al., 1984; Oosterbeek, 2009; Pittaway, 2007). However, these formal interventions do attract students with strong interests in entrepreneurial activities and supply students with a much more hands-on approach than that of traditional management programs (Weaver, et al., 2002). Informal entrepreneurship interventions are used in entrepreneurship curricula to supplement the formal curriculum based courses typically taught in departments and schools. Recent studies also found that formal education alone is not sufficient to developing purposefully coordinated actions. They found rather, that mentorship, a network of advisors as well as advisory boards with a wide range of experiences were instrumental in entrepreneurship success (Mitchell, 2009). Researchers also state very strongly that entrepreneurship is different from management and that business school educators, need to focus more on the experiential / practicum experience of management education students to achieve greater success with their classrooms (Carsrud, Brannback, Nordberg, & Renko, 2009). It has been shown that in order for entrepreneurship education to be successful, instructors must incorporate some elements of practical and experiential elements to their intervention Page 1 of 20

techniques including business plan writing and internships (Weaver, et al., 2002). In fact, according to Chell & Allman, it is the less tangible personal aspects of an entrepreneurial education that are at the crux of the knowledge transfer of enterprise development, quality mentoring and mentoring network support, and critical to the success of experiential learning (2003). Entrepreneurship education straddles the line between formal and informal instruction methods. A mixed methods analysis of some highly regarded entrepreneurship programs that incorporated findings from the SBA 2000 National Survey of Entrepreneurship Education found that all institutions agree that the essential foundation courses in entrepreneurship include new venture financing, business plan writing introduction to entrepreneurship, small business management and new venture growth (Weaver, et al., 2002). The most popular teaching methods include: creation of a business plan, case studies, lectures, discussion and guest speakers among others (Weaver, et al., 2002). Other studies also implied that networking between entrepreneurial students and faculty is a possible pathway for diffusing any number of valuable outputs (knowledge, information, human capital) into the market; while still others emphasized student based entrepreneurial programs (e.g. MIT Venture Mentoring), and business plan competitions (Mitchell, 2009). In addition to attracting students with entrepreneurial interests, entrepreneurship courses have also been shown to positively impact student attitudes toward new venture creation (Clark, et al., 1984). Students overwhelmingly perceive entrepreneurs favorably despite not knowing enough entrepreneurs personally or really being aware of their work (Henderson & Robertson, 2000). Determinants of entrepreneurial activity however are still not easily deciphered. One study found that psychological factors are the most important positive determinants in determining student entrepreneurial intent across disciplines. The authors also found that older students are more entrepreneurially driven than younger ones and that males are more entrepreneurially driven than females, in all fields except other health courses. Surprisingly, the health sports and humanities fields presented significantly higher entrepreneurial potential than other traditional business management fields while technological professional experience increased student propensity towards entrepreneurship (Teixeira & Forte, 2009). Although the entrepreneur who starts a business while in college has historically been the exception (Lüthje & Franke, 2003), both the demand and supply of high quality entrepreneurship education programs are on the rise. In the 2008 alone, business ownership ranked second to business executive among overall business career aspirations among incoming freshmen (Pryor & Reedy, 2009). Despite these findings, however, entrepreneurial students are often overlooked if not ignored in the research literature. There is a general consensus that entrepreneurship education has the potential to create successful companies that provide substantial indirect benefits to colleges and universities such as creating a culture of entrepreneurship on campus, increased regional economic development, increased donor support and recruitment of other entrepreneurially minded students (M. M. Mars, Slaughter, & Rhoades, 2008). However, not much is known about what types of economic outputs are possible with student entrepreneurial efforts. Georgia is a particularly interesting case as it has been touted as being one of the top entrepreneurial states in the country (Fairlie, 2010). This paper seeks to fill the research gap by investigating the relative importance of formal and informal entrepreneurship education interventions used by Georgia institutions of higher education and assessing the potential economic outputs of Georgia s student entrepreneurs. Approach/Methods: Combinations of quantitative and qualitative measures were used to conduct this study. National and state level figures allowed for the assessment of the impact of formal entrepreneurship education interventions on colleges and university campuses. The Page 2 of 20

author also conducted interviews and profiles cases of successful student entrepreneurs to explore the economic impact of student entrepreneurship in Georgia. Data Collection Data was collected on both the formal and informal entrepreneurship interventions used among U.S. colleges and universities. I gathered formal data from the U.S. Department of Education s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Integrated Post-Secondary Data System (IPEDS Database) as well as the NCES College Navigator Database (2010a). IPEDS provided data on formal entrepreneurship degree and certificate majors at national and state levels. The Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) codes were used to establish the presence or absence of an entrepreneurship major within an institution. Table 1 illustrates the list of CIP codes used in this study. These codes were used to capture classification and ranking information on the U.S. institutions based on number of major completions for the 2007-2008 fiscal year. I also used the U.S. Department of Commerce s Reference USA database to assemble company data (2010b) on student entrepreneurial ventures. Up-to-date company profile information (as recent as January 2010) was gathered on company sales and revenues figures, total number of employees, year established, parent company information and current ownership of the companies profiled in this study. Cases of successful student entrepreneurs, newspaper and magazine articles, social networking groups such as Linked-In and Facebook for interventions dedicated to promoting student entrepreneurship among Georgia universities were surveyed. These online resources allowed for the investigation of both the formal and informal entrepreneurship related degrees, courses, groups and other university related programs found among select Georgia colleges and universities. These findings were supplemented with profiles of successful high profile student entrepreneurs across the country and within the state. Sample Selection According the NCES College Navigator database, there are a total of 182 accredited colleges and universities in Georgia. Data was collected on seventeen of these institutions. These seventeen colleges represent all of the Georgia Research Alliance institutions, the Atlanta University Center institutions as well as the top five Georgia colleges and universities identified by the IPEDS database for the presence of an entrepreneurship and small business operations (CIP Code 52.07) major. After collecting the data, Georgia s formal interventions were compared to the U.S. as a whole, and both formal and informal interventions within the state were analyzed. Finally, a cross case analysis of successful Georgia student entrepreneurs was conducted and some concluding recommendations for Georgia s colleges and universities were provided. Results/Insights: National Level: Formal Interventions Most U.S. universities do not offer entrepreneurship as either a first or a second major. Of the approximately 7,000 higher education institutions in the U.S. only 419 and 59 respectively offer entrepreneurship as either a first or second major (less than 6 percent). The top 10 U.S. institutions offering the entrepreneurship major (FY 2007-2008) are presented in Table 2A on Page 3 of 20

the left. They are ranked based on the number of student completions for the major achieved for that year. University of Iowa tops the list with 225 student completions (FY 2007-2008). Three of the top ten colleges that offer the entrepreneurship major are based in Florida and one Georgia institution made the list. Just two of the top ten universities offer second majors in entrepreneurship. Despite these preliminary results, these colleges and universities do not represent what are known as the best colleges and universities for entrepreneurship. Table 2B (on the right) displays the 2010 U.S. News and World Report on Entrepreneurship. Not one top ten university from either list overlaps. In fact, the closest Best College for entrepreneurship, which ranked in 15 th for the entrepreneurship major was Syracuse University with a total 47 student completions in FY 2007-2008. State Level: Formal Interventions Figure 1 shows the top ten states for the total number of institutions which offer the entrepreneurship and small business operations major. Georgia ranks fifth in the nation. When you compare Georgia to the rest of the U.S., there are a number of similarities (See the Chart in Figure 1). Of the 182 Georgia colleges and universities, less than 14 percent of offer the entrepreneurship major. What is unique, however, is that of these twenty-four Georgia institutions, most are small (with student populations of under 6,000 students), rural, two year or less institutions. Only one university enrolled students above the undergraduate level: Southern Polytechnic State, which had one student complete an MBA in entrepreneurship for FY 2007-2008. Georgia s Colleges and Universities: Formal and Informal Interventions Figure 2 shows an alphabetical listing and map of the seventeen Georgia colleges and universities used in this study. There are a variety of formal and informal interventions being used in Georgia. Most colleges and universities in Georgia do offer formal courses in entrepreneurship (54 percent), and approximately sixteen percent offer degrees or certificates in entrepreneurship in our sample. This is twice as high as the formal state level data gathered from the IPEDS database which showed that the entrepreneurship major (degree / certificate) is only offered in 8 percent of all Georgia institutions for FY 2007-2008. Formal entrepreneurship interventions include courses, departments, degrees and certificates. Informal entrepreneurship education interventions include programs, business plan competitions, student-led organizations, institutes and centers, scholarships and alumni groups. In our sample entrepreneurship education courses come from a variety of disciplines including traditional management schools, the social entrepreneurship and non-profit management fields, construction management programs and culinary arts. Among the seventeen institutions surveyed, Georgia Institute of Technology offered the most entrepreneurship interventions (27), followed by Georgia State University (24), the University of Georgia (19) and Kennesaw State University (14). Most Georgia institutions in our sample supply students with a good mix of informal and formal entrepreneurship offerings. The University of Georgia, for example, provides students with entrepreneurial opt-in programs, student-led clubs, a business plan competition, workshops and events and courses. Collectively, Georgia institutions offer entrepreneurship education interventions that are 70 percent formal and 30 percent informal. National Level: Student Entrepreneurs Popular media has profiled several high profile student entrepreneurs. Some of the most wellknown are presented in Table 3. The students represent some of the most prestigious academic institutions. They have founded multi-billion dollar corporations; collectively they provide hundreds of thousands of jobs in the U.S. and abroad. Several of them have never Page 4 of 20

completed their degrees. Most of these high profile student entrepreneurs found success in the within the high-tech information technology (IT) industry, particularly surrounding the then newly emerged internet and computer technology fields. Many of them are also housed in or around the Silicon Valley corridor. All are highly influential individuals and many are known not-only for their massive corporate revenues, but also for their philanthropy (e.g. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; Michael and Susan Dell Foundation). Although slightly beyond the scope of this paper, the propensity of these notable student entrepreneurs towards incomplete degree completions merits further investigation. In my conclusion, I will address potential solutions to avoid this trend in Georgia. Georgia s Student Entrepreneurs: Case Profiles Student entrepreneurs in Georgia are showcased in Tables 4, 5, 6 and 7. One of Georgia s most notable student entrepreneurs is Christopher Klaus (Table 4.) Mr. Klaus was enrolled in the College of Computing when he founded Internet Security Systems in 1994. In 2006, he sold his company to IBM for $1.3 billion dollars. Currently, IBM-Internet Security Systems (as it is now known) is headquartered in Atlanta, employs over 350 people and generates over $55 million per year in revenue. Mr. Klaus has continued his entrepreneurial efforts and founded Kaneva, a virtual reality social networking company also based in Atlanta, Georgia. Although Mr. Klaus never officially completed his degree, one of his recent charitable acts included donating $15 million dollars to Georgia Tech for the construction of the new Klaus College of Computing building on main campus. Patrick Whaley is another Georgia Tech student. He founded Omega Wear, Inc. in 2006 while working with the Advanced Technology and Development Center (ATDC) on campus. After suffering from a heinous attack in which he was shot several times in the back, he was able to utilize his own clothing line (Omega Wear apparel) to rebuild his strength. He competed in the 2010 InVenture Prize Business Plan Competition at Georgia Tech and won 1 st place as well as the People s Choice Award. Patrick Whaley is currently a 5 th year mechanical engineering student and is planning on completing his degree (See Table 5). Sean Belnick founded BizChair.com in 2001 at the age of thirteen. BizChair was one of the first online retailers of office furniture. The company is located in Canton, Georgia and currently generates over $37 million per year and employs approximately 110 people. One of Sean Belnick s reasons for going to college after founding a highly successful business was to obtain a better understanding of his company s financial and accounting records. Sean obtained his Bachelor s Degree in Business Administration from Emory University in 2009 (See Table 6). Jasmine Lawrence is an African-American who started her own hair and body care corporation at the age of 13. After losing most of her hair from a poorly administered chemical perm treatment at age 11, she developed her own line of herb based hair growth treatments to reverse the damage. She later founded Eden Bodyworks, LLC in 2004. Jasmine utilized and credits much of her success to the nationally acclaimed Network for Teaching Entrepreneurship (NFTE) program which provided an opportunity to develop high quality business plans to students at her high school in New Jersey. Jasmine has been featured on the Oprah Show, and has product distribution contracts with Walmart and Whole Foods Market. In her spare time Jasmine is a motivational speaker and writer for teen magazines on the subjects of success, business ownership and finance. Eden Bodyworks, LLC generated over $1,000,000 in 2008. She is currently a sophomore at Georgia Tech. Jasmine is also the first person in her family to attend college. Her current major is computer science and her goal is to graduate and possibly continue on for her PhD and then work for a major government agency in IT. Her plans Page 5 of 20

are to focus on her academics and her computer engineering career in government and not necessarily continue on with managing her bath and body care business (See Table 7). Cross-Case Analysis Georgia s student entrepreneurs represent a range of disciplines, levels of motivation, academic, socio-economic and entrepreneurial backgrounds. Student entrepreneurs also see dual value in having both strong academic and entrepreneurial futures. Some use academic interventions to guide their success, while others utilize family and friends or fish it out on their own. Most high profile student entrepreneurs occupy the high tech / innovation fields. Georgia s student entrepreneurial ventures, on the other hand, reflect an array of technology use and scientific knowledge. Personal tragedy and family support are more often than not influential factors for student entrepreneurs. Jasmine and Sean are particularly grateful to their families for their support. Georgia s student entrepreneurs also utilize both domestic and academic resources around them to propel their businesses forward and achieve varying degrees of success. Consequently, although I profiled successful student entrepreneurs in this paper, many (if not most) students, will not be successful entrepreneurs at least once in their careers. If that is the case, then future research is merited into the varying determinants and outcomes of student entrepreneurial success. Implications to Community/Industry: This study constitutes a preliminary analysis of the formal and informal entrepreneurial interventions used among Georgia s colleges and universities and the potential impact of student entrepreneurial behavior on Georgia s economy. The findings demonstrate that student entrepreneurs in many ways chart their own path. Although students are not majoring in entrepreneurship in high numbers, there are still far more students seek out entrepreneurship as a career than the numbers accounted for in the research literature. In Georgia, colleges and universities as a whole do invest in a variety of entrepreneurial interventions. The link, however, between the student, the university and the start-up venture is in many ways still incomplete. It is not clear whether these institutional investments are sufficient to generate long term successful entrepreneurs. And although most Georgia institutions promote courses on entrepreneurship, it still remains to be seen how much of an impact these formal interventions have on student entrepreneurial intent as opposed to the more informal entrepreneurship interventions like student networking groups, business plan competitions or even specialized semi-formal programs like the TI:GER (Technological Innovation Generating Economic Results) program at Georgia Tech. Nevertheless, by encouraging these entrepreneurs to begin their ventures as students, responsible institutions must respond with solutions that allow students to be successful at both academics and enterprise. The risk of failure at the entrepreneurial and academic levels is not one that any institution would want for their students. The hope is that at the very least, student entrepreneurs will have completed their studies and obtained degrees that merit recognition from employers and investors alike while they decide whether to pursue their entrepreneurial interests concurrently or at a later date. Many top research institutions in the U.S. are experienced in technology transfer and in the commercialization of university innovations (Daley, Hughes, Moran, O'Shea, & Lindahl; Mitchell, 2009). Faculty and graduate students have been encouraged to utilize technology transfer offices and university incubators to commercialize their technological innovations. However, most U.S. post-secondary institutions including those in Georgia, do not provide the same level of support and encouragement to nascent entrepreneurs at the undergraduate level. As this study shows, that time is now upon us all. In addition to promoting entrepreneurship to students of all demographic backgrounds, both on campus and on-line, institutions must promote entrepreneurship to students of all disciplinary backgrounds not just those in the technology or Page 6 of 20

management fields. Despite their selective absence in this study, I was intrigued at how many students demonstrate an interest in entrepreneurship from the humanities, health and social science fields (Teixeira & Forte, 2009; Weinrauch & Liska, 2006). In fact, I spoke with several students not explicitly profiled in this paper whose entrepreneurial motivations were not based on the profit factor, but rather were socially driven. Also known as social entrepreneurship, this form of enterprise creation is very appealing to young students who see themselves as the future agents of change in the world (Cutrer, 2005; Matthew M. Mars, 2009; Weinrauch & Liska, 2006; Winfield, 2005). At the Georgia Institute of Technology, students from management, international affairs, economics and even public policy have started businesses that serve the double (social and financial) or even triple (social, environmental and financial) bottom lines (Tilley, 2009; Zahra, Gedajlovic, Neubaum, & Shulman, 2009). Social entrepreneurship was not the focus of this paper, but the mere presence of this kind of student venture on Georgia campuses warrants future investigation. Georgia institutions would do well to create a kind of bridge program that not only takes into consideration the entrepreneurial interests of students, but considers wholeheartedly the fact that students by their very definition are academic beings as well. The goal would be to serve two interests, that of the student (personal) and the university (institutional), in a way that can serve the greater community as well as state level economic interests. Value to the Theme: From this analysis, it is clear that student entrepreneurs are more plentiful on university campuses than the research literature would suggest. The variety of both for- and not-for-profit student founded enterprises may or may not be tied to students academic interests. Student motivations, fears and aspirations may be subject to the same variables as those of traditional entrepreneurs with the exception of one additional constraint the classroom. Students utilize both formal and informal entrepreneurship interventions to the extent that they are made available to them and students may even create interventions where none existed before. The current and future economic impact of these student entrepreneurs on the state are yet to be fully measured. However, the potential exists for Georgia to not only to become one of the most entrepreneurial states in the country, but also the most entrepreneurially savvy. This investigation forms the basis of a discussion on the student entrepreneur, as well as the role that colleges and universities can play in in terms of cultivating long term sustainable entrepreneurs. Keywords: student entrepreneurship, university interventions, value creation, entrepreneurship education Page 7 of 20

Table1: CIP Code Classifications CIP Code 1 Description 52 Business, Management, Marketing, and Related Support Services. Instructional programs that prepare individuals to perform managerial, technical support, and applied research functions related to the operation of commercial and nonprofit enterprises and the buying and selling of goods and services. 52.0701 Entrepreneurship/Entrepreneurial Studies. A program that generally prepares individuals to perform development marketing and management functions associated with owning and operating a business. 52.0702 Franchising and Franchise Operations. A program that prepares individuals to manage and operate franchises. Includes instruction in legal requirements, set-up costs and capitalization requirements, financing, and applications to specific franchise opportunities. 52.0703 Small Business Administration/Management. A program that prepares individuals to develop and manage independent small businesses. Includes instruction in business administration; enterprise planning and entrepreneurship; start-up; small business operations and problems; personnel supervision; capitalization and investment; taxation; business law and regulations; e-commerce; home business operations; and applications to specific sectors, products, and services. 52.0799 Entrepreneurial and Small Business Operations Other. Any instructional program in enterprise management and entrepreneurship not listed above. Source: Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP 2000) http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/cip2000/ciplist.asp?cip2=52 Page 8 of 20

Table 2A & 2B: US Based Entrepreneurship Interventions Table 2A: The top 10 US institutions offering entrepreneurship as either a first / second Table 2B: US News & World Best Colleges Report on Entrepreneurship (2010): major (FY 2007-08): 1 University of Iowa, IA (225) American intercontinental, FL (191) Northwestern, IL (146/43) University of LaVerne, CA (168) Valencia Community College, FL (146) Indian River State College, FL (127) Central Michigan University, MI (106) University of St Thomas, MN (79) Chattahoochee Technical College, GA (77) Southern Methodist University, TX (34/40) Babson College, MA University of Pennsylvania, PA University of Southern California, CA Indiana University- Bloomington, IN Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MA Syracuse University, NY University of Arizona, AZ UC-Berkeley, CA University of Texas--Austin, TX Ball State University, IN 1 Source: IPEDS Database (FY: 2007-2008), by number of completions Page 9 of 20

Figure 1: US State Rankings State Rank: The top 10 states for number of institutions offering the Award Rank: Institutions offering the entrepreneurship Major (1 st or 2 nd ) classification by degree type entrepreneurship major Entrepreneurship Majors 1. California 2. Michigan 3. Florida 4. Pennsylvania 5. Georgia 6. New York 7. Illinois 8. Ohio 9. Washington 10. Minnesota 224 126 115 US GA Under 14% of all Georgia institutions offer majors in entrepreneurial and small business operations. Most are small, rural, 2-year institutions. 21 Certificate Associates Bachelor s Below Bachelor s Degree Degree Degree 28 6 0 2 1 0 1 0 Master s Degree Certificate Above Bachelor s Degree Doctoral Degree Source: IPEDS Database (FY: 2007-2008) Page 10 of 20

Figure 2: Alphabetical List of Georgia Institutions and Map Albany State Georgia State University Medical College of Georgia Chattahoochee Technical College Georgia Southern University Morehouse College Clark Atlanta University Griffin Technical College Southern Polytechnic University East Georgia College Gwinnett Technical College Spelman College Emory University Lanier Technical College University of Georgia Georgia Institute of Technology Kennesaw State University Source: Google Maps, created July 5 th, 2010 Page 11 of 20

Figure 3: Georgia Entrepreneurship Interventions Scholarship 1% Alumni Group 1% Business Plan Competitions 5% Other 4% Club 5% Center 5% Certificates 6% Programs 9% Courses 54% Degrees 10% Programs: e.g. TI:GER (GT), Start Me Up! (UGA) Other: e.g. Symposiums, Conferences, Workshops, Camps, Speaker Series Clubs: All student based organizations Source: 17 Georgia college & university websites Page 12 of 20

Table 3: Successful US Student Entrepreneurs Company Student Name State Year University Sales Employee Enrollment Name Est. Attended Volume Size Status Facebook Mark Zuckerberg CA 2004 Harvard $500 million 1,201 Dropped out Google Sergey Brin & Larry Page CA 1998 Stanford $24 billion 19,835 Dropped out Yahoo! David Filo & Jerry CA 1994 Tulane & $7 billion 13,900 Graduated Yang Stanford Dell Michael Dell TX 1984 University $53 billion 96,000 Dropped out of Texas Apple Steve Wozniak CA 1976 Univ. of California $43 billion 34,300 Stopped & came back Microsoft Bill Gates WA 1975 Harvard $59 billion 93,000 Dropped out FedEx Fred Smith TN 1971 Yale $35 billion 280,000 Graduated Source: ReferenceUSA, last updated January 2010 Page 13 of 20

Table 4: Georgia s Student Entrepreneur: Case Profile #1 Name: Christopher Klaus Institution: Enrollment Status: Degree / Major: Company Name: Georgia Institute of Technology Dropped out Computing Internet Security Systems Year founded: 1994 No. of Employees: 350 Financials: Sales Volume: Intervention: Product or service: Sold in 2006 to IBM for 1.3 billion $55 million unknown Internet Security Source: ReferenceUSA, last updated January 2010 Page 14 of 20

Table 5: Georgia s Student Entrepreneur: Case Profile #2 Name: Patrick Whaley Institution: Georgia Institute of Technology Enrollment Status: 5 th year Undergraduate Degree / Major: Mechanical Engineering Company : Whaley Ventures, LLC / Omega Wear, Inc. Year founded: 2006 No. of Employees: 4 partners Financials: 1 st Place and People s Choice Award in the Georgia Tech InVenture Prize competition He won: $15,000 for his invention and also received the People's Choice Award of $5,000 Intervention: Advanced Technology Development Center (ATDC) @ Tech Website: http://patrickwhaley.com/ Product or service OmegaWear Apparel Source: www.patrickwhaley.com & www.gatech.edu Page 15 of 20

Table 6: Georgia s Student Entrepreneur: Case Profile #3 Name: Institution: Sean Belnick Emory University Enrollment Status: Graduated 2009 Degree / Major: Company Name: Business Management Belnick, Inc. / BizChair.com Year founded: 2001 No. of Employees: 110 Sales Revenue: Intervention: Website: Product or service $37 million unknown http://www.bizchair.com/ Office Furniture Source: ReferenceUSA, last updated January 2010 Page 16 of 20

Table 7: Georgia s Student Entrepreneur: Case Profile #4 Name: Institution: Enrollment Status: Degree / Major: Company Name: Jasmine Lawrence Georgia Institute of Technology Sophomore Computer Science Eden Bodyworks, LLC Year founded: 2004 No. of Employees: 8 Sales Revenue: Over $1 million (2008) Intervention: Website: Product or service Network for Teaching Entrepreneurship (NFTE) www.edenbodyworks.com Hair Care Products (developed when she was 11 years old) Source: Personal Interview Conducted on July 19 th, 2010 Page 17 of 20

Bibliography Acs, Z. J. (2009), Knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship, Small Business Economics, 32(1), pp. 15-30 Anon. (2010a), Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Degrees and Other Awards Conferred by Title IV Eligible, Degree-Granting Institutions, 2007-2008, In: USDoE (Ed.). Washington, DC: United States Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics Anon. (2010b, June, 2010), Various Company Profiles from http://www.referenceusa.com/ Carsrud, A., Brannback, M., Nordberg, L., & Renko, M. (2009). Cognitive maps and perceptinos of entrepreneurial growth: a quasi-experimental study in the differences between technology entrepreneurs, corporate managers, and students. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 17(1), pp. 1-24 Chell, E., Allman, K. (2003), Mapping the motivations and intentions of technology orientated entrepreneurs, R&D Management, 33(2), pp. 117-134 Clark, B. W., Davis, C. H., Harnish, V. C. (1984), Do courses in entrepreneurship aid in new venture creation? [Article]. Journal of Small Business Management, 22(2), pp. 26-31 Cutrer, E. F. (2005), Student Social Entrepreneurs: A Classroom Call to Action, [Article]. Peer Review, 7(3), pp. 27-28 Daley, J., Hughes, I., Moran, G., O'Shea, D., Lindahl, A. From the blackboard to the boardroom [Article]. Entrepreneur, 38(4), pp. 57-62 Fairlie, R. F. (2010), 2009 Kauffman Index of Entrepreneurial Activity, Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation Gartner, W. B. (1994), Experiments in Entrepreneurship Education - Successes and Failures, Journal of Business Venturing, 9(3), pp. 179-187 Gries, T. (2010), Entrepreneurship and structural economic transformation, Small Business Economics, 34(1), pp. 13-29 Henderson, R., Robertson, M. (2000), Who wants to be an entrepreneur? Young adult attitudes to entrepreneurship as a career, Career Development International, 5(6) Kuratko, D. F. (2005), Emergence of entrepreneurship education. Development, trends, and challenges, 29(5), pp. 577-597 Lüthje, C., Franke, N. (2003), The making of an entrepreneur: testing a model of entrepreneurial intent among engineering students at MIT, R&D Management, 33(2), p. 135 Mars, M. M. (2009), Socially-Oriented Ventures and Traditional Entrepreneurship Education Models, A Case Review, 84(5), pp. 290-296 Mars, M. M., Slaughter, S., Rhoades, G. (2008), The State-Sponsored Student Entrepreneur, Journal of Higher Education, 79(6), 638-+. Page 18 of 20

Mitchell, L. (2009), Beyond Licensing and Incubators: Next-Generation Approaches to Entrepreneurial Growth at Universities, Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation Oosterbeek, H. (2009), Impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurship skills and motivation, European Economic Review, 54(3), pp. 442-454 Pittaway, L. (2007), Entrepreneurship education - A systematic review of the evidence, International Small Business Journal, 25(5), pp. 479-510 Pryor, J. H., Reedy, E. J. (2009), Trends in business interest among college students: An early exploration of data available from the Cooperative Institutional Reseach Program, Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation Schramm, C. J. (2006), Entrepreneurship in American Higher Education, The Kauffman Panel on Entrepreneurship Curriculum in Higher Education Teixeira, A. A. C., Forte, R. P. (2009), Unbounding entrepreneurial intents of university students: a multidisciplinary perspective, Working Papers (FEP) -- Universidade do Porto(230), pp. 1-32 Tilley, F. (2009), Sustainability Entrepreneurs, Greener Management International(55), pp. 79-92 Weaver, K. M., Turner Jr., R. A., McKaskill, T., Solomon, G. (2002), Benchmarking Entrepreneurship Education Programs, Paper presented at the International Council for Small Business (ICSB) 47th World Conference Weinrauch, J. D., Liska, K. (2006), A social entrepreneurial and educational venture: A creative and collaborative approach to address the methamphetamine epidemic. [Article]. Academy of Health Care Management Journal, 2, pp. 51-73 Winfield, I. (2005), Fostering Social Entrepreneurship through Liberal Learning in the Social Sciences, [Article]. Peer Review, 7(3), pp. 15-17 Zahra, S. A., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D. O., Shulman, J. M. (2009), A typology of social entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges, [Article]. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), pp. 519-532 Page 19 of 20

Page 20 of 20