I can't speak for the TEM in STEM, but for science it doesn't really matter that much where you do your undergrad. In fact, if you choose well, it's better to go to a less prestigious university if you will have an opportunity to do actual research (and take full advantage of that opportunity). It's a lot more important to have solid bench experience than a degree from Harvard. A degree is just a piece of paper. If you aren't happy with where you're at when you are finishing up your undergrad, you should also consider using a masters degree as a stepping stone to a better PhD program. It matters a lot more who you do your PhD and postdoc with (and to a lesser extent where).
On the issue of brains and talent, this is something I didn't appreciate for a long time. People get to the top through a lot of hard work and dedication. It's not like a Hollywood movie where there are people that are just born brilliant and are able to make things happen without effort. When you see someone college-age doing amazing things, it's usually because they've been working at it for a long time before college. If you focus beyond just passing tests, four years is a fair amount of time to catch up. When you see a brilliant 60 year old scientist, that outcome is the result of a career of hard work.
You will go far if you spend some time thinking about what you need to do to get yourself to the next level and start acting like it. If you want to be in academia, be the undergrad that thinks and works like a grad student. When you're a grad student, act like a postdoc; when you're a postdoc, act like a professor. And it shouldn't be just an act, you need to actually take on the responsibilities and do the work of someone at the next level. Let your work speak for itself rather pretending to be at the next level by talking down to your peers. When you think this way, it makes it very easy to take the next step. People making the hiring decisions won't have to think very hard to imagine you stepping up to the next level.
One interesting possibility that doesn't seem to get discussed much is metallicity. Stars containing more heavy elements tend to be younger, while older stars tend to have a lower metallicity.
Looking at our own biochemistry, you don't just need carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen to make it work. Heavier elements from the fourth and fifth periods of the periodic table are also required.
I wouldn't be surprised if life is rare but also becoming more common over the last few billion years. Evolution also doesn't necessarily lead to intelligent life capable of harnessing technology.
Now I just think you're trolling. There isn't any taboo against sharing personal information, but there are consequences.
A truly tolerant society doesn't care what people are doing in private. The only reason to go to the trouble of collecting and analyzing private data is if you intend to do something with that data. The reason people care about privacy is that your agenda is not the same as mine.
The tl;dr is that arguments against privacy generally focus on not having anything to hide if you aren't doing anything wrong. In reality, it's a lot more complicated. Loss of privacy can cause a great deal of harm even when you haven't done anything wrong.
I don't have any interest in being a salesman (working for someone else). As someone in the very early stages of trying to start my own business (technical founder), this type of thing sounds interesting, but 8-10 weeks of a full immersion program is just too much. Even if I had the time and the money to attend a rigorous 2 month bootcamp, I have a hard time believing that would be a good use of my time. Something more tailored to a part time schedule would be more interesting to me, and even then it would be a tough sell.
But if you do decide to push ahead with it, good luck. I do think there's probably room for this type of thing targeted to sales people if you can deliver the goods. I've only known a few people in sales, but it truly is a wonderful sight to see a pro work his magic.
I worked in a lab where we had a computer dedicated to running a very specialized piece of equipment. The computer was a 386 running DOS. We had all of the software updates (including operating system) to upgrade everything if needed in case the computer stopped working. That was only a few years ago, and as far as I know that 386 is still running. After seeing the current software for running that piece of equipment, I understand why the lab never upgraded. The old UI was a bit clunky, but it was much easier to use.
One thing to be aware of is imposter syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impostor_syndrome). From your description, it sounds like you may be selling yourself short. I don't know about the prevalence in CS, but this seems to actually be pretty common in academia.
This is definitely not the best approach. But when I am way out of my depth, the first place I look is at degree requirements for that area of expertise (from looking at a couple university websites) and then I find the textbooks used in those courses or searching online under those subject areas to get closer to the information I am actually looking for.
One of the biggest problems in learning something radically different is knowing what it is you don't know. A solid background will give you plenty of hints, and just looking at tables of contents can help you quickly get to the good stuff if you aren't looking for a solid background.
On the issue of brains and talent, this is something I didn't appreciate for a long time. People get to the top through a lot of hard work and dedication. It's not like a Hollywood movie where there are people that are just born brilliant and are able to make things happen without effort. When you see someone college-age doing amazing things, it's usually because they've been working at it for a long time before college. If you focus beyond just passing tests, four years is a fair amount of time to catch up. When you see a brilliant 60 year old scientist, that outcome is the result of a career of hard work.
You will go far if you spend some time thinking about what you need to do to get yourself to the next level and start acting like it. If you want to be in academia, be the undergrad that thinks and works like a grad student. When you're a grad student, act like a postdoc; when you're a postdoc, act like a professor. And it shouldn't be just an act, you need to actually take on the responsibilities and do the work of someone at the next level. Let your work speak for itself rather pretending to be at the next level by talking down to your peers. When you think this way, it makes it very easy to take the next step. People making the hiring decisions won't have to think very hard to imagine you stepping up to the next level.