<p>Quite a number (8 maybe?) of my friends got into Stanford and MIT from my giantic high-school, so I am representing all of us to ask the following question:</p>
<p>Stanford or MIT?</p>
<p>Most of us would like to major in computer science, and few of us would like to major in physics.</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. **Agree or Disagree</p>
<p>Q2: **I believe MIT and Stanford offers different type of cool kids. MIT kids are more intense, focused and dedicated, whereas Stanford kids are more diversed, socially interesting and street-smart. **Agree or Disagree</p>
<p>Q3: **MIT programs require more work than Stanford programs in CS or physics. **Agree or Disagree</p>
<p>Be careful, diu9lei. I can see that you're new to CC. There are a lot of good sources of information, but there's a lot more people on this board who know just as much as you and I do (maybe less) who answer only based on biases and first impressions. Take everything with a grain of salt.</p>
<p>Q1: I can't really say. MIT students constantly boast about how much Boston has to offer in terms of tech internships and jobs. Nevertheless, you can't really get much better than Silicon Valley.</p>
<p>Q2: I'm not going to agree or disagree with this stereotype. I believe that both schools have dedicated, hardworking students. Stanford's student body is probably a bit more diverse because MIT more-or-less specifically looks for math/science analytical thinkers.</p>
<p>Q3: Yes, this one's probably true. MIT science and engineering courses are relatively tough, and there is no grade inflation. However, don't think that Stanford is easy by any means. No matter which school you go to, you'll have to work hard for your grades.</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. Agree or Disagree</p>
<p>-Both points don't go in any particular direction. Silicon Valley and Cambridge are the two most explosive areas technologically in the country. MIT might have better physics, but for the most part they're about equal.</p>
<p>Q2: I believe MIT and Stanford offers different type of cool kids. MIT kids are more intense, focused and dedicated, whereas Stanford kids are more diversed, socially interesting and street-smart. Agree or Disagree</p>
<p>-This is one distinct advantage of Stanford. Stanford has all types of kids, since almost every single department is top-notch. There is a frat scene, but hardly overwhelming. There are good sport teams if you're into that, but the school isn't based around the ra ra stuff. That being said, MIT will allow you to immerse yourself farther into CS/physics if you're into it.</p>
<p>Q3: MIT programs require more work than Stanford programs in CS or physics. Agree or Disagree</p>
<p>-To be honest, I'm not totally sure. The techie workload at Stanford doesn't get as much press, since they're diluted with the humanities people. There's no question about MIT's workload, and I don't really think that Stanford's is greater.</p>
<p>likes thats a fair comparison, an honors course at Stanford with a core requirement at MIT.The fact that the MIT course isnt blown out of the water and is required by everyone says alot but if youre looking for a harder class try 18.024 extra numbers</p>
<p>I believe that Stanford's 52H is even harder than 18.024. I may be wrong, but from what I've seen by comparing various problem sets, 52H is more theoretical (a lot of abstract proofs) whereas 18.024 is more practical (lots of equation solving). More people struggle with theoretical math. Anyway, that's not the point. Even though I'm biased towards Stanford, I admit that in terms of overall math, MIT is probably better. My point is that Stanford's workload is intense, contrary to its reputation for being laid-back and casual. To anyone who is choosing between MIT and Stanford, don't think that Stanford is the easy way out. MIT's extremely tough, no doubt about that, but Stanford's definitely not easy, especially if you're considering a science/engineering major.</p>
<p>I think 18.024 is more useful especially for taking Putnam 52H seems like the type of class were students get introduced to really complicated math and get to understand abstract proofs and by the end of the course they arent that much better at problem solving than before.Learning to make your own proofs is better, well either way Putnam fellows dont have a problem finding a challenge here.</p>
<p>I would point out a key issue in determining 'what is hard/difficult'. I think we have to careful how we are defining 'hard/difficult'. My definition of a place that is 'difficult' is a place where it is more difficult to get top grades. Hence, difficulty is intimately intertwined with grade curves and grading philosophy.</p>
<p>Let me give you an example. Take premed, at any school - MIT, Stanford, Harvard, wherever. I think we can all agree that it is 'hard' anywhere. But why? Honestly, the premed material really isn't all that difficult to understand. It's certainly more comprehendable than most advanced math coursework. </p>
<p>What makes premed 'hard' is not the material, but rather the grading as well as the competition in the class. You can study extremely hard, understand the material very well, and still wind up with a very bad grade. Why? Because everybody else in those premed courses is also studying extremely hard and also know the material well, and the grades are harshly curved. To get an 'A', it's not good enough to just understand the material, you have to understand it better than most other people in the class, and that's no walk in the park. </p>
<p>Contrast that with a situation where the material is extremely incomprehensible to you. But if it is also extremely incomprehensible to eveybody else, and the class grade curve is not harsh, then you'll do fine. Case in point - I knew one guy who scored a 30% on one of his engineering exams. Did he cry? Not at all - in fact, he celebrated. Why? Because the average score was a 25%. And according to the grade curve, his 30% was good enough for an 'A-'. He had no idea what was happening on the exam. But neither did anybody else, so when it came time to curving the grades, it was a wash. </p>
<p>The point is, it's not enough just to talk about the comprehensibility of the maerial of various courses and whatnot. You also have to talk about how those courses are graded, whether there's a curve, how harsh the curve is, and so forth.</p>