<p>^^ screw harvard, go to oxford.</p>
<p>um. i don't think we have anything that really resembles an international relations program (it may be v. small or masquerading as something v. different, but i doubt it) music is actually the most popular minor here, since so many people come in with experience, but i don't have any personal experience with it.</p>
<p>An0nym0u5 ~ harvard, oxford, yale, it's all basically the same. i turned down oxford in favor of yale last year, and i haven't really seen much in the way of a name-recognition difference between the two schools...</p>
<p>(same goes for MIT & Stanford... talking to my overseas friends, the name recognition on those two isn't quite as quick/immediate as for HYP & oxbridge, but they're still <em>definitely</em> recognized as top-tier universities :-P)</p>
<p>we wuz talking about international name-recognition. to be honest i cant stand the british accent.</p>
<p>i actually did mean international name-recognition. at least, with my friends & other contacts in germany and the UK. i'm sure it's different in other countries, though :-P</p>
<p>so how powerful of a name recognition does MIT and Stanford have internationally compared to Harvard?</p>
<p>You would be surprised. Outside of the academic/scientific communities there are MANY folks who have heard of Stanford but have no idea what MIT is. Maybe it's the sports thing. Which brings me to the main point to this thread.</p>
<p>Stanford is a complete university with arts and social science programs on an equal footing, at the least, with engineering and science; with professional schools (med and law) that MIT doesnt have and no shortage of pre laws and premeds; and with a more typical, and full, college experience including intercollegiate sports. MIT excels at what it chooses to do. It's great but not for everyone. Stanford has a better financial aid program for middle income kids. It is west coast centric. MIT is probably better for low income applicants. It seems to gear its finaid to low income applicants and seems to view providing for this group as a particular mission.</p>
<p>Cross admits break about 50-50.</p>
<p>MIT may not provide a "typical" college experience, but it certainly provides a full one. Obviously, it's focused on those who have an interest in science/engineering. However, it's misleading to imply that MIT is UNLIKE Stanford in that it does NOT have sports or strong arts, humanities, and social science programs.</p>
<p>MIT has something like 40 varsity sports and an extremely high rate of participation in these sports. They're well-funded programs and provide an extra dimension to life at MIT, a place which is often stereotyped as being "nerdy." MIT doesn't depend on sports for clout with potential applicants or the general public, as Stanford might (aside from it's academic pull), but it is factually incorrect to suggest that Stanford is unlike MIT in that it provides a full college experience including intercollegiate sports. Intercollegiate sports are alive and well at MIT.</p>
<p>Further - MIT is science/engineering focused, but MIT has departments in writing, literature, foreign languages/literatures, history, anthropology, political science, linguistics/philosophy, economics, and a rockin' business school, among others I probably forgot. Of course MIT is a "complete" university. MIT humanities/social science/arts programs are great, just like Stanford's. The student body is more interested in science/engineering so those departments are larger, which makes sense. MIT also has a bunch of premeds. </p>
<p>But it is true that MIT is not for everyone. If you got in, though, then MIT is a good place for you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Stanford is a complete university with arts and social science programs on an equal footing, at the least, with engineering and science;
[/quote]
Agreed, MIT's programs in the humanities are not of the same standard as their offerings in Engineering. That is not to say they aren't excellent, they are, and if you choose to be one of the very small number of (say) English Literature majors at MIT, then you get a level of individualised care not possible in EECS, but they are not generally on an equal footing with Engineering and Science.</p>
<p>
[quote]
with professional schools (med and law) that MIT doesnt have and no shortage of pre laws and premeds
[/quote]
Almost agreed. 10% of an MIT undergraduate class goes on to medical school, 5% go on to law school. I believe that MIT too has no shortage of prelaws and premeds. Both have top 10 ranked business schools, though MIT's is arguably more involved in undergraduate education than Stanford's. There is no denying that MIT does not have a law school or a medical school, but I'm not sure that that matters as much for undergraduate education, particularly as MIT both offers classes in law and offers full cross-registration with Harvard a mile up the road. I was not pre-med, but while at MIT, I got a job in a lab attached to the Harvard Medical School in Boston. I don't think that MIT not having a medical school matters so much given the resources that pre-meds have at MIT.</p>
<p>
[quote]
and with a more typical
[/quote]
Agreed</p>
<p>
[quote]
and full, college experience
[/quote]
Disagree Completely</p>
<p>
[quote]
including intercollegiate sports.
[/quote]
MIT last year fielded more NCAA intercollegiate teams than Stanford, albeit mostly in Division III. MIT also offers a more participatory intramural sports program (more than 75% of students take part) than most other schools including Stanford. What an NCAA division I school offers is the whole communal gathering at the Sports stadium, something that doesn't happen in the same way at MIT, but if you are interested in playing as opposed to watching sport, then MIT is probably superior to Stanford for most students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
MIT excels at what it chooses to do. It's great but not for everyone.
[/quote]
Agree completely.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Stanford has a better financial aid program for middle income kids.
[/quote]
Disagree significantly</p>
<p>
[quote]
It is west coast centric.
[/quote]
Agreed.</p>
<p>
[quote]
MIT is probably better for low income applicants.
[/quote]
If you are saying that MIT guarantees to meet full financial need for all students for 4 years and Stanford does not, then certainly this makes sense. Apart from that, I am not certain that this is true.</p>
<p>Mikalye:
Re finaid: MIT is better for low incomes. It is free (tuition room board travel etc)for family incomes less than 75k and doubles Pell grants. For low incomes, Stanford is free for incomes less than 60k. For higher incomes, however, Stanford, unlike MIT, has a policy of being tuition free for incomes up to 100k (and it also caps assessment of student assets at 5 instead of 25%, caps home equity, divides parental contribution by number of kids in college, among other benefits). I am not going to get into anecdotal evidence as well. Suffice it to say that I disagree with your disagreement as to which is better for which income group.</p>
<p>Re sports and the college experience: For starters there's a huge difference between Stanford sports and MIT's DIII efforts. I appreciate MIT's efforts; it's just not the same thing and the experience is undeniably different. Moreover, it's such an obvious and significant difference that it is unclear what you are arguing over. Stanford I believe is second to MIT in the breadth of its sports offerings. However, at Stanford, unlike MIT, the major sports amount to social events and alums continue to follow Stanford sports well after graduation. Hell, the games are even televised. At MIT there will be no rooting for the alma mater in the annual NCAA basketball tournament and office pool. Additionally, having a community that includes a majority of non-science types, definitionally makes for a more typical college experience. I am not being critical of MIT. I greatly appreciate it for what it chooses to be. It is more narrowly focussed and, to me that is one of its strengths. But it is CLEARLY different and atypical.</p>
<p>Personally, i prefer MIT but it is not for everyone.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>what's the typical college experience? isn't a college experience whatever you make it to be? though i do agree mit is a very different place =)</p>
<p>
[quote]
MIT humanities/social science/arts programs are great, just like Stanford's.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hmmm...rankings for English, history, or sociology...etc?</p>
<p>@ Sam Lee,
I'm not aware of any national or international rankings of specific undergraduate major programs. The Social Science Library of the University of Illinois maintains a website with links to angencies providing rankings, and as you can see, undergraduate majors like English, sociology, history, etc. do not appear: College</a> Rankings: General and Undergraduate, Education and Social Science Library, U of I.</p>
<p>Stanford and MIT are vastly different. I've taught at Stanford as a guest professor, and my daughter is now a sophomore at MIT, so I have some experience with both institutions. I'm not sure the typical MIT student would be happy at Stanford, where the major science buildings are off to the side of the campus. I've heard some Stanford science majors talk about feeling somewhat marginalized on a campus that aggressively recruits and admits athletes, legacies, and faculty offspring. </p>
<p>My son, a high-school junior who dislikes math and science, would be quite happy at Stanford. But my daughter, who always longed to find a critical mass of others who loved science and math as much as she did, would have been pretty miserable. She took to MIT like a duck to water.</p>
<p>If you're admitted to both places, be sure to visit. The differences are like night and day.</p>
<p>Wow, CalAlum, that was an incredibly insightful response. I have only just visited the two campuses, but even from those experiences I gained to very different perspectives. Stanford, to me, felt very "country-clubbish," what you describe as "athletes, legacies, and faculty offspring." I simply could not picture myself there for four years, even with the world renowned science and math departments. I did, however, fall in love with MIT the moment I toured the campus and saw students discussing problem sets, eating donuts, and just plain having fun. There was this nonchalance and humor behind the "drinking water from the firehose" academics that just captivated me. No negative comment on Stanford at all, just didnt seem right for me.</p>
<p>yea. the culture is wayy different. if your a sci/math person you'll feel at home at MIT. </p>
<p>mmhm, well said.</p>
<p>I was admitted to both Stanford and MIT back in 07 and I pretty much decided on whim that I was going to come to MIT. (ok, this is somewhat of an exaggeration, but I felt I would have been pretty happy at both Stanford and MIT)</p>
<p>I'm not going to comment on the social/intellectual aspects of either campus because I think this point had been debated over and over again in the Stanford v. MIT threads and I won't repeat many of the things that were said.</p>
<p>However, I did visit Stanford for my very first time this October and I really felt happy that I decided to come to MIT after visiting Stanford.</p>
<p>Location / campus is a BIG factor for me, and although this seems kind of shallow I must admit that this was a key issue when I decided on colleges before. I'm a firm believer that even the school is absolutely-omgosh wonderful, if it's in the middle of nowhere, I'm probably not going to enjoy it regardless (I'm too used to city life and having a city to explore from living in Asia).</p>
<p>Stanford is truly like a country-club, and another thing that gets me is that the campus is SO BIG! After coming back from Stanford, I ask myself why people even need bikes at MIT lol. Although the campus is pretty and all, the great space between buildings and dorms kind of turned me off. I really enjoy the fact that MIT's pretty connected and you can access all the main group buildings even by tunnel when it's snowing out.</p>
<p>Moreover, Boston's just a stone's throw away from MIT, and the Charles River is absolutely gorgeous in the summer/fall. Stanford? San Fran is quite a ways away by train, and Palo Alto's too far to walk to on a consistent basis (biking is reasonable, or by car). I would say that the only things that Stanford definitely trumps MIT on in terms of locale is its awesome architecture and nice weather. But other than that, I've grown to love living in Boston and even the ease of access to so many other colleges (and their students) like Harvard, BU, BC, Tufts, Wellesley...etc. What does Stanford have? Just Cal.</p>
<p>Oh but they do have better Chinese food ;)</p>
<p>Anybody who thinks that they shouldn't go to MIT because it doesn't have strong enough prestige/name recognition is utterly, completely, and indisputably a moron.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Anybody who thinks that they shouldn't go to MIT because it doesn't have strong enough prestige/name recognition is utterly, completely, and indisputably a moron.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I guffawed heartily. :D</p>
<p>I've also never understood why so many people think that you'll get some sort of sub-par education in the humanities/social sciences by going to MIT. I'm sure MIT's Pulitzer prize winners teach English just as well as any other school's.</p>
<p>Q1: Perhaps MIT does have a more prestigious programs in CS and physics. However, I feel that there would be more research and internship opportunities at Stanford because of its location in the Silicon Valley. </p>
<p>Disagree.</p>
<p>Stanford is better in CS. For CS, Stanford>Berkeley=MIT=CMU.
1) Stanford people have won more Turing awards.
2) Stanford CS has been ranked as #1 by US NEWS, and National research council for several decades.
3) Stanford people have founded HP, YAHOO, Google, Sun, Silicon graphics, and etc.
4) Stanford people have created a lot of milestone inventions in IT, at least more so than MIT.
To summarize, Stanford is THE king in CS.</p>
<p>For physics, Stanford=MIT=Berkeley=Caltech=Harvard=Princeton</p>
<p> MIT + Stanford > All</p>