<p>I know several kids who chose Stanford only because they were from Calif and the financial in state package they said was stronger but I will tell you they really wanted MIT and to be in Boston but just couldnt afford to make that choice. I wonder what Calif does to encourage kids to go to Stanford?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I wonder what Calif does to encourage kids to go to Stanford?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think California needs to do any thing about it, except offering the nice weather. I think it is enough by knowing that many young millionaires or billinaires were trained from Stanford. In fact, if you want to get rich, or want to change the world through technology, Stanford is the place to go. </p>
<p>Again, H-P, CISCO, SUN, Silicon Graphics, Netscape, Yahoo, and Google were all founded by Stanford. What famous companies were founded BY MIT?</p>
<p>Texas Instruments, Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Digital Equipment Corporation, E*TRADE, McDonnell Douglas, Renaissance Technologies, Genentech.</p>
<p>The following technologies were developed at MIT or by MIT graduates: the microchip, TCP/IP, ARPANET, public-key cryptography, lossless data compression, OCR, speech-to-text processing, LaTeX, UNIX.</p>
<p>Stanford gets beaten really embarrassingly in the department of alumni winning Nobel prizes -- 7 Stanford alumni have won a Nobel compared to 23 MIT alumni, despite the fact that Stanford is substantially bigger.</p>
<p>It is clear that MIT has been at least as influential in developing hugely important technologies as Stanford. (Think about this: none of the Stanford companies could have existed without the MIT inventions.) Any reasonable person -- and this group probably doesn't include you -- would have to rate them at least tied in the field of developing revolutionary technology. And MIT <em>owns</em> Stanford by a factor of 3 in educating people who win the most important and prestigious prize in science. Read that to yourself three times.</p>
<p>Look, datalook, Stanford is a good place. I'm going to Stanford for graduate school, and I have never yet been an MIT student. But your ridiculous obsession with trying to show Stanford is "better" for technology than MIT is sad and makes my university (by which I mean Stanford) look bad. Maybe you'll notice that you're not being taken seriously by anyone, including people who are critical of MIT in areas where it can actually be criticized legitimately. </p>
<p>If you want to stop being a joke, I'd recommend that you either:
(a) add some nuance to your arguments, providing evidence that you are something other than a drone.
(b) pick a field (such as political influence) in which Stanford does actually have the upper hand. Then people will quickly agree and you can be happy as opposed to losing the same argument over and over.</p>
<p>datalook just to respond to your comment I WAS TOLD THIS BY KIDS WHO ACCEPTED THE STANFORD PACKAGE AND WANTED TO REALLY GO TO MIT. I did not invent this no need to-</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well said and honestly said by a student about to study at Stanford. That was my concern about another Stanford troll a couple of years ago: I didn't want Stanford to look ridiculous because of poorly crafted arguments, because I might have one or more children studying at Stanford in the next decade or so. If a student has the good fortune to be admitted at MIT (a fine college, in my opinion) and Stanford (ditto), it should be up to that student to figure out what is most personally important in deciding where to attend. Any factual information that people share on CC threads is much appreciated, but nuance and sophistication of arguments helps a lot too in winning people over to a new opinion.</p>
<p>Well actually HP and Genentech were created by Stanford Grads.
'William (Bill) Hewlett and David (Dave) Packard both graduated from Stanford University in 1934. The company originated in a garage in nearby Palo Alto while they were post-grad students at Stanford during the Great Depression.'</p>
<p>Genentech was created from technology discovered by professor Herbert Boyer of UCSF and Professor Stanley Cohen of Stanford (who received a Nobel prize in 1986).</p>
<p>It was created after the discovery of recombinant DNA splicing (which still gets Stanford millions every year). Yes there was an MIT venture capitalist that was a co-founder... but the technology came from UCSF and Stanford.</p>
<p>I'm just clarifying this because I've been to HP labs and Genentech so those two wrong facts happened to stick out. Again I'm not saying that this means stanford>MIT or anything of that nature lol...</p>
<p>And to OP they are both fine places and it doesn't really matter which one you go to ... it's what you do there that counts.</p>
<p>
[quote]
SalikSyed wrote: * Well actually HP and Genentech were created by Stanford Grads....
Genentech was created from technology discovered by professor Herbert Boyer of UCSF and Professor Stanley Cohen of Stanford (who received a Nobel prize in 1986).*
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Apparently there are two errors in your statements:</p>
<p>Error #1: Genentech was not created by "Stanford Grads".
-Herbert Boyer received his B.S. in biology and chemistry from St. Vincent's and his M.S. and Ph.D. from the University of Pittsburgh.<br>
-Stanley Cohen received his B.A. in biological sciences from Rutgers University and his M.D. from the University of Pennsylvania. </p>
<p>Error #2: Stanley-Cohen-of-Genetech (born in 1935) did not receive a Nobel Prize in 1986. You are confusing him with another "Stanley Cohen" (born in 1922), a professor at Vanderbilt University, who did. That Stanley Cohen received his dual bachelor's degrees (chemistry and biology) from Brooklyn College, his M.A. in zoology from Oberlin College, and his Ph.D. from the University of Michigan; he has been with Vanderbilt since 1959.</p>
<p>Oh Ben Golub just destroyed datalook!</p>
<p>
[quote]
SalikSyed wrote: Well actually HP and Genentech were created by Stanford Grads....
Genentech was created from technology discovered by professor Herbert Boyer of UCSF and Professor Stanley Cohen of Stanford (who received a Nobel prize in 1986).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Apparently there are two errors in your statements:</p>
<p>Error #1: Genentech was not created by "Stanford Grads".
-Herbert Boyer received his B.S. in biology and chemistry from St. Vincent's and his M.S. and Ph.D. from the University of Pittsburgh.
-Stanley Cohen received his B.A. in biological sciences from Rutgers University and his M.D. from the University of Pennsylvania. </p>
<p>Error #2: Stanley-Cohen-of-Genentech (born in 1935) did not receive a Nobel Prize in 1986. You are confusing him with another "Stanley Cohen" (born in 1922), a professor at Vanderbilt University, who did. That Stanley Cohen received his dual bachelor's degrees (chemistry and biology) from Brooklyn College, his M.A. in zoology from Oberlin College, and his Ph.D. from the University of Michigan; he has been with Vanderbilt since 1959.</p>
<p>(Admin: This is a verbatim of my previous post, with a typo corrected; "Genetech" has been changed to "Genentech".)</p>
<p>Okay you are right.
Stanford PROFESSOR and a UCSF PROFESSOR.
I stand corrected. </p>
<p>Well the key point is that the technology did come from Stanford and UCSF not from MIT... MIT provided the VC. Again not saying that implies anything lol.</p>
<p>Mr. Ben Golub,</p>
<p>
[quote]
Texas Instruments, Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Digital Equipment Corporation, E*TRADE, McDonnell Douglas, Renaissance Technologies, Genentech.
[/quote]
H-P is more of a Stanford company. Both H and P were Stanford graduates. </p>
<p>Intel is now ruled by people from Stanford. Its current CEO is a lecturer at
Stanford business school. Its chairman is a Stanford ph.d and former professor. Stanford ph.d Ted Hoff invented microprocessor at Intel, the most notable invention from Intel. </p>
<p>Genetech's main technology is based on the invention of gene slicing from UCSF (prof Herbert Boyer) and Stanford (prof Cohen Stanley). The invention has nothing to do with MIT.</p>
<p>Where is DEC now? </p>
<p>
[quote]
The following technologies were developed at MIT or by MIT graduates: the microchip, TCP/IP, ARPANET, public-key cryptography, lossless data compression, OCR, speech-to-text processing, LaTeX, UNIX.
[/quote]
TCP/IP: the link between TCP/IP and MIT is weak. It was developed at Stanford by prof. Vint Cerf and his students and Bob Kahn.</p>
<p>public-key cryptography: among the 3 main pioneers of this technology, Martin Hellman and Ralph Merkle were Stanford Ph.d. Hellman is a long time Stanford professor. </p>
<p>Latex: Stanford professor Don Knuth invented TEX. Without TEX, Latex wouldn't exist. Latex is a package built on TEX. It is great, but Not at the level of TEX in terms of greatness.</p>
<p>UNIX: what has MIT done in UNIX? show me please.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Stanford gets beaten really embarrassingly in the department of alumni winning Nobel prizes -- 7 Stanford alumni have won a Nobel compared to 23 MIT alumni, despite the fact that Stanford is substantially bigger.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You finally made a point. Stanford gets its ass kicked here. But realizing that almost all Nobel prizes were awarded to people who attended schools before 1970, you have proved nothing but MIT was more attractive to top scientists than Stanford before 1970. No more, no less.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And MIT <em>owns</em> Stanford by a factor of 3 in educating people who win the most important and prestigious prize in science. Read that to yourself three times.
[/quote]
Using your logic, Stanford owns MIT in chemistry because Stanford has won 9 national medal of science in chemistry, while MIT has won 1 only.</p>
<p>Using your logic, Stanford owns MIT in computer science because Stanford has 18 ties to Turing award, while MIT has only about half of that.</p>
<p>Of course, your logic is silly. I wouldn't go that far by claiming who owns who.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It is clear that MIT has been at least as influential in developing hugely important technologies as Stanford. (Think about this: none of the Stanford companies could have existed without the MIT inventions.) Any reasonable person -- and this group probably doesn't include you -- would have to rate them at least tied in the field of developing revolutionary technology.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>CISCO, Genetech, google, yahoo, SUN, netscape were founded by Stanford people without MIT's invention.
[quote]
I'm going to Stanford for graduate school, and I have never yet been an MIT student. But your ridiculous obsession with trying to show Stanford is "better" for technology than MIT is sad and makes my university (by which I mean Stanford) look bad.
[/quote]
What is your logic? How come my praise of Stanford makes Stanford look bad. </p>
<p>You are going to Stanford. So Stanford is Your university? Hold on for a while! Not yet.</p>
<p>
[quote]
b) pick a field (such as political influence) in which Stanford does actually have the upper hand. Then people will quickly agree and you can be happy as opposed to losing the same argument over and over.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Stanford has an upper hand in lots of things. NOT just political influence. For example, in its currect staff, Stanford has more Nobel prize winners, more national medal of science winners, more faculty members in the national academy of science and the institute of medicine. So you are going to a university just as good as MIT (at least as good, IMO).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Stanford has an upper hand in lots of things. NOT just political influence. For example, in its currect staff, Stanford has more Nobel prize winners, more national medal of science winners, more faculty members in the national academy of science and the institute of medicine.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Stanford is a good deal bigger than MIT. Look datalook no one cares (maybe except you) whether Stanford has more Nobels or whatnot. Stanford has had its fair share of contributions over time as has MIT. You can churn out all the information from wikipedia as you want but in the end, MIT is just as respected an institution as Stanford. I turned down Stanford for MIT for several reasons, none of which were academic, none of which rested on the fact that Stanford grads founded Google, Yahoo, or whatever. Just go to college will ya?</p>
<p>
[quote]
By datalook: UNIX: what has MIT done in UNIX? show me please.
[/quote]
</p>
<p><a href="http://www.gnu.org/%5B/url%5D">http://www.gnu.org/</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.fsf.org/%5B/url%5D">http://www.fsf.org/</a></p>
<p>both started up by RMS. Sure, maybe UNIX was written first by AT&T, but the GNU project was started up by RMS while he was at MIT's AI and CS labs.</p>
<p>"Using your logic, Stanford owns MIT in chemistry because Stanford has won 9 national medal of science in chemistry, while MIT has won 1 only."</p>
<p>I don't know where you are getting your information from. Just off the top of my head, I know of at least four MIT chemistry graduates who won a National Medal of Science (Woodward, Corey, Marks, and Lippard.) Two of these guys won it in the past 5 years or so. I know of at least 4 former or current MIT chem professors who won the National Medal of Science: Lippard, Molina, Cotton, and Whitesides. There are probably more.</p>
<p>collegealum,</p>
<p>Go to the NSF official website</p>
<p><a href="http://www.nsf.gov/od/nms/recipients.cfm%5B/url%5D">http://www.nsf.gov/od/nms/recipients.cfm</a> </p>
<p>search MIT and Stanford in affiliation.</p>
<p>That's only affiliation by professorship.</p>
<p>^^Yes, and only professorship at the time of the award. People are generally professor emeriti by the time they win. For instance, Cotton spent the majority of his career at MIT but his affiliation was listed as Texas A & M because he moved there at the very end of his career.</p>
<p>Actually, datalook, MIT has 2 chemists who won the National Medal of Science winners while they were profs at MIT. Har Gobind Khorana was a synthetic chemist in the chem dept., but they classified him under biological sciences.<br>
If you looked at alumni, you would get a different result. Additionally, there is a huge difference in the undergraduate alumni MIT and Stanford turn out in science. </p>
<p>MIT has 11 undergraduate alumni who won the Nobel Prize. Stanford has one guy, Eric Cornell, who just happened to get his PhD at MIT. </p>
<p>I challenge you to compare the undergrads at MIT and Stanford by any other measure. The only intellectual area that might be comparable might be software startups by undergraduate, but I doubt anything else would be.</p>
<p>So you should stop making statements that stanford students have a better records of achievement in science than mit students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Stanford has one guy, Eric Cornell, who just happened to get his PhD at MIT.
[/quote]
John Steinberg (Nobel prize winner in literature), and Dudley Hershbach (Nobel prize winner in chemistry) attended Stanford as undergraduates as well. </p>
<p>Again, let me quote what I have said:
"realizing that almost all Nobel prizes were awarded to people who attended schools before 1970, you have proved nothing but MIT was more attractive to top scientists than Stanford before 1970. No more, no less." </p>
<p>Also, let me remind you that Stanford became a powerhouse in science and engineering around 1970 and a world class leading force around 1980.</p>
<p>I'm NOT that interested in alumnus winning Nobel prizes, because this is history long time ago. I think Nobel prize winning faculty members in current staff matter much more to the university because this reflects the current status of a university.</p>
<p>If you really want to compare the aluminus, I think an apple to apple comparison would be look at the number of alumnus in both schools majored in science and engineering plus economics before 1970, and then calculate a Nobel prize winner percentage. If you do that, the result will be more interesting. you might already know MIT had graduated a lot lot more people than Stanford in these fields before 1970. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I challenge you to compare the undergrads at MIT and Stanford by any other measure. The only intellectual area that might be comparable might be software startups by undergraduate, but I doubt anything else would be.
[/quote]
Why only undergraduates? why not graduates? why not facultyand staff?</p>
<p>
[quote]
^^Yes, and only professorship at the time of the award. People are generally professor emeriti by the time they win. For instance, Cotton spent the majority of his career at MIT but his affiliation was listed as Texas A & M because he moved there at the very end of his career.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The official NSF website only tracks 'professorship at the time of the award'. You are right. It is an apple to apple comparison. Things get much more complicated if you want to add other affiliations and the data is much harder to gather.</p>
<p>John Steinbeck never graduated from Stanford so I don't think that counts.</p>