Technical analysts look for chart patterns that may predict further price changes. One such analyst is Daryl Guppy, who in a CNBC article has analyzed similarities between the chart patterns following the 1929 stock market crash and the crash of 2008.

Here is his analysis:

• In 1929, the market fell 49% from its high. In 2008, the drop was 52%
• Following the 1929 crash, the market recovered 46%. After the 2008 crash the market rose 69%
• Following the 1930 recovery, the next leg down following the rebound exceeded targets by 28%
• If this is the next leg down in the current market, he is looking for Dow 8,400. However, if it exceeds his target, he then projects Dow 7,500 in 2010.

I remember April 14, 2000. I was in my second year of business school, and it was only weeks before graduation; we were coasting to the end. I came out of my negotiations class and there was an almost visible buzz. Everyone was clustered around a TV monitor turned to CNBC. The NASDAQ was crashing, and the DJIA was dropping, 400 points, 500 points. It ended down 617 points, a record at the time, and with the terrific sell-off in tech stocks many of my classmates' day trading careers were coming to a terrible close. The mood was somber, indeed, and we all went home and clutched our already-confirmed job offers close to our hearts.

While the bear market continued for several years and many of my friends' dotcoms went under before they'd even found the best place to order pizza, somehow the ensuing months of depressed indices and falling averages felt more like the natural cycle of life; as if spring 2000 had been a huge earthquake and the next few years were aftershocks, mudslides, traffic jams. Difficult but not catastrophic. In the meantime, my portfolio stuffed with value picks was fine (but my dotcom, too, went bankrupt -- fortunately, several months after I quit, rendering my never-exercised options worthless).

Today, the market is down again. In lulls in meetings my colleagues check their Treos and report. Down 300. Down 400. As I finish a one-on-one confab, I hear: Down over 500 points. And I say, "it's not that big a deal." The DJIA was in record territory. A few months ago we whispered about record gains between meetings, we IM-ed each other with updates. Could it hit 12,000? It did, and kept on zooming up, up, record after record.

A 500-point drop today is nothing, not an earthquake from which to rebuild but more like a loud, spectacular thunderstorm that causes little damage. Full of sound and fury. Signifying: not much.

Hamilton College. Virginia Military Institute. Knox College. Lausanne University. Quinnipiac University. CUNY. Baylor. Augustana. Bates. Kettering. Bowdoin. Duke. Rollins.

That isn't a list of backup colleges for a high school senior whose chief extracurricular activity was "pep squad." No, it's a list of the alma maters of the CEOs of the top 500 companies in the U.S., in terms of revenue. And the big finding here?

It doesn't matter where you go to college.

Although, as the Wall Street Journal points out, Harvard helps (nine of the 500 chief executives graduated there), there's no overwhelming trend. CEOs went to public colleges, technical schools, and not-very-well-known universities all over the planet. If you went to a college or university more prestigious than ITT Tech? Chances are, it's on the list. My alma mater, Washington and Lee University, is there, as well as several schools I rejected in my quest for a good ranking in U.S. News & World Report.

In my analysis of leaders great and not-so-great, the college you attend can open doors, it can get you a job in the first place. But becoming a CEO isn't about getting a job (you'll find precious few results for "CEO" in a Hotjobs search), but about keeping it, and really? College doesn't teach you that. I'd be more interested in a work history study of the top few hundred CEOs; do they come from management consultants? Famous management training programs like those at GM, Procter & Gamble, Coca-Cola, Intel? In my opinion, college is a wonderful experience and (should you be a high school senior) you should go to the best one you can convince to take you. But Harvard does not make the CEO.