"Don't make the same mistake I did."

Colleges and Universities A-Z Stanford University
21

<p>You're completely right aberdeen, and a lot of the universities you mentioned have comparable student bodies to Stanford. On the other hand, at least at Stanford, I didn't get the level of financial aid, and overall resources from say Michigan (a possibility of mine). I've had this conversation with a few friends, and some of the folks in the sciences do feel that they could be learning the same things for cheaper at public universities. Yet they are involved with a lot of research and receive many grants that, at least subjectively, I feel are easier to get at Stanford. This goes into a larger debate about whether a more expensive private is worth it etc. </p>

<p>But if you choose Stanford, you can certainly make it great.</p>

22

<br>


<br>

<ul>
<li>Nobel prize winning author John Steinbeck.</li>
<li>Ted Danson, the actor who portrayed the bartender Sam Malone on the syndicated television series "Cheers". Danson transferred from Stanford to Carnegie-Mellon.</li>
<li>John McEnroe, Wimbledon tennis champion.</li>
<li>Reese Witherspoon, actress.</li>
<li>Tiger Woods, golfing prodigy and multi-gazillionaire.<<</li>
</ul>

<p>I was willing to entertain what the Stanford student had to say about his experience until he over-reached with the above!</p>

<p>Steinbeck went to Stanford and took all the writing classes he could and then left to live life and write about it. </p>

<p>John MacEnroe did what a lot of tennis champs did in those days--they went to college for one year, won the NCAA championships and then left to become pro. Jimmy Connors did the same thing at UCLA. A lot of world class athletes who are in sports where they can make a lot of money (like Tiger Woods) come to get the college experience, but never really plan to go all the way through to the degree in 4 years.</p>

<p>I don't know about the actors/actresses.</p>

23

<p>Just to let everybody know, it is NOT necessary for you to go to a school like Stanford to succeed in life. And neither should a school be judged by its alumni. I mean look at Harvard's graduate schools.If you have people like Bush graduating from there you also have people like Obama. </p>

<p>In short, college shouldn't only be looked as a way to become famous and rich. All of the above mentioned colleges give a very good education and an atmosphere for you to discover yourself during ( probably) the 4 most important years of you life. At most a college can give you the 4 best years of your life. At worst : a degree.</p>

24

<p>To answer your question, I would say maybe. The only problem with big public universities is the big undergraduate populations. It's even harder to get help from professors in some of these universities, especially Berkeley.</p>

25

<p>Renbruno, didn't Bush go to Yale?</p>

<p>walkyu and nhsharvard, your responses make sense. And I agree with everyone's point about drop-out athletes - it's very common in college basketball which I'm familiar with. I guess now my concerns are on a more personal level... </p>

<p>I grew up with UMD basically in my backyard - lots of people from my high school will be attending, which is a negative. But aside from all that, their Honors program is supposed to appease some of the concerns you guys brought up. Especially in the Honors Gemstone program, there is supposedly more access to research opportunities within a small, tight-knit community with unique access to top-notch professors at honors seminars and such. All that with the opportunities of a big undergraduate university, and possibly for free if I get the full-ride scholarship.</p>

<p>So I guess that's the reason I posted this review... I was like, I'm gonna pass up a no-debt education for a high-priced sham masquerading as an undergraduate degree? What?! Is this really the world-renowned Stanford University?</p>

<p>But you've eased my concerns, thankfully. Now I'm back in the same position I was in before reading the review - confused and undecided. But with my facts sorted! :)</p>

26

<p>I don't understand why the poster only focuses on the undergraduate degree as the sole indicator of affiliation with a university. </p>

<p>"Look beneath the superficialities, and you'll find that the overwhelming majority did not attend Stanford as an undergraduate, and sometimes, not even as a graduate student."</p>

<p>"The founder of MIPS, John Hennessey, did not attend Stanford for his undergraduate degree. His alma mater is Villanova University. He got his graduate degrees at State University of New York, Stonybrook."</p>

<p>He mentions the graduate degrees when they aren't Stanford.</p>

<p>"Andy Bechtolsheim got his undergraduate training in Germany and got an MS from Carnegie-Mellon...."</p>

<p>Yeah, Bechtolsheim also got a PhD from Stanford, thank you very much. [url=<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Bechtolsheim%5DAndy"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Bechtolsheim]Andy&lt;/a> Bechtolsheim - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<a href="I%20know%20citing%20wikipedia%20is%20a%20big%20no-no%20in%20the%20academic%20community,%20but%20that's%20all%20I%20have.">/url</a> It was at Stanford that Bechtolsheim developed the idea.</p>

<p>The Google cofounders and Sun Microsystems founders have ties to Stanford in other ways apart from the undergraduate degree. Also, he cites Microsoft founders? Why? What is this "overwhelming majority"? I don't recall Stanford taking credit for giving rise to Microsoft.</p>

<p>I do see it playing off of the success of its HP founders, which is no fault of Stanford because Hewlitt and Packard do give thanks to their alma mater. Also, Silicon Valley's growth is often attributed to Stanford.</p>

<p>I don't see the rhetorical angle the poster is getting at. He or she belabors the point that Stanford spends a lot of marketing money trying to sell students into believing the aforementioned "propaganda," but fails to actually cite when it does so. Then, he or she omits information that actually does tie certain distinguished people to Stanford. It appears he is actively engaging in propaganda of his own.</p>

<p>I do agree with some of his complaints. The teachers here sometimes do seem apathetic, and not all TA's have similar teaching ability or intellect (which I, myself, find is a major problem). He leaves off saying "Don't make the same mistake I did." What is this mistake, and what is the alternative?</p>

<p>The great Harvard University suffers from the same apathy from professors, leading a Harvard student to write in an article something to the effect of "Harvard students don't come here to learn." Going to a top rate public school isn't going to offer better teaching. If you wanted good teaching you'd go to a liberal arts school, but there aren't many that are great in the engineer department. I think the message that he should have carried is that students should not come to Stanford expecting the best education, and to look at other options when deliberating the decision of where to spend the next 4 years of their life. But to criticize it on unreasonable grounds is a bit asinine. </p>

<p>I, too, have had weighty thoughts about going to an easier state school. But this is more because of the brutal course load and unaccommodating curve in the engineering classes, which is brought upon by the brilliant students Stanford attracts. Stanford's resources have been, insofar as what I've seen, better than that of state schools.</p>

27

<p>Relax, people. The OP reminds me some of the smears you see about Harvard all the time. Some disgruntled alum or someone pretending to be an alum writes a lengthy screed that then gets gleefully passed around for decades by the partisans of rival schools. The result is that Harvard gets a reputation for unhappy students and uncaring professors desite the fact that the vast majority of students LOVE the time they spent there. </p>

<p>I suspect that it's much the same with Stanford. Both the tone and the sheer length of the first post suggests that it is written by someone with score to settle rather than by some kind truth-seeker merely hoping to help others. </p>

<p>Stanford did not get where it is today by being a crappy school.</p>

28

<p>This is so old. The overwhelming majority of students would highly disagree with him. Remember that he went to Stanford in the 80s, and Stanford didn’t start beefing up its undergrad until a bit later.</p>

<p>The fact that he didn’t hear of Knuth in his classes is his problem, not Stanford’s. I’ve heard it many, many times, even in 106A (the book has a biography on him, for Christ’s sake).</p>

<p>Very, very, very few (you could count them) people are unemployed at graduation from Stanford. Guaranteed. (Check CDC statistics: Career</a> Development Center)</p>

<p>“professors generally have to teach only one-quarter (10 weeks total) of classes a year”</p>

<p>Wrong… some teach all three, some teach two, some teach one.</p>

<p>“that's not even a full ten week period, because the lectures last all of 3 hours TOTAL in the week, and usually a couple of office hours placed at the most inconvenient times.”</p>

<p>So false. They do teach for ten weeks, for lecture (I don’t know what he wants the university to do about the 3 times/week thing… that’s standard at any college, though some meet more and some meet less). Also, professors always state their office hours and say “or by appointment.” If it’s inconvenient for you, then you make an appointment. I did and it was fine. The rest of his statistics, based on the above, are just plain wrong.</p>

<p>Tom Campbell would have received a reduced salary since he would be on leave / sabbatical / emeritus.</p>

<p>“How do the professors know if their teaching is any good?”</p>

<p>Stanford forces its students to do course evaluations at the end of the quarter in order to determine salaries and whatnot. Believe me, they’re a pain but they have a purpose.</p>

<p>“Several profs got their undergrad degrees from Berkeley.”</p>

<p>And several profs at Cal got their undergrad degrees from Stanford! No point here.</p>

<p>“The professors always view themselves as RESEARCHERS first, and teachers a distant third or fourth -- if at all.’”</p>

<p>It’s generalizations like these that show how much he knows (virtually nothing—he isn’t even a professor).</p>

<p>“you will see that many classes are taught by "Staff". No, "Staff" is not the name of a professor, but a euphemism for "somebody who might be associated somehow to our department, such as a graduate student, and who may or may not have ever taught a class before, and who may or may not have any training in how to teach."”</p>

<p>So wrong. “Staff” is listed when the professor wasn’t decided when the bulletin was made. All the courses I’ve taken the past two years with “staff” listed were taught by full professors.</p>

<p>“In fact, some classes are so bad that Stanford undergraduates actually take courses at the nearby De Anza Community College and Foothill Community College. That's right: Community Colleges.”</p>

<p>The reason they take them there is that they’re EASIER than at Stanford! I know engineers can get credit for CS106B by taking it at De Anza, since it’s much, much harder at Stanford.</p>

<p>“You enter as a sophomore and realize "the honeymoon is over", i.e. that your professors aren't necessarily gifted in communicating their knowledge”</p>

<p>What? I’m finishing up my sophomore year and I’m still amazed at my professors, and that’s for a good reason. (I live in a mainly sophomore dorm, and as far as I’ve seen, none of them think this.)</p>

<p>“I never had less than 50 in a class, so forget the 7:1 student teacher ratio published in US News and World Report's annual college survey”</p>

<p>First quarter freshman year, I had 1 class with less than 10, and 1 class of about 15. Second quarter, I had a class of about 5. Third quarter, I had two classes <20. This year, I’ve had 7 classes under 30, and 6 under 20 (3 of which had about 10).</p>

<p>“But the number of open slots for students is extremely limited”</p>

<p>Well, it’s a small class, capped at 15 or so. However, all students who apply for introsems will be guaranteed at least one (at some point)—many take multiple introsems (I’ve taken 3).</p>

<p>“most professors don't participate”</p>

<p>Well of course not. There are over 1,800 professors. If each offered an introsem, that would be 1,800 introductory classes! There are over 200 offered, which is pretty good.</p>

<p>“Thus the vast majority of undergraduates miss out with one-on-one faculty contact”</p>

<p>This has absolutely NO basis. Any undergraduate can have one-on-one faculty contact. It’s not hard at all.</p>

<p>“Nobel Prize winning physicist, Doug Osheroff (BS Caltech, PhD Cornell) taught a freshman seminar in...amateur photography. What a joke!”</p>

<p>Funny, that’s one of the most popular introsems, and student seem to love it. Osheroff is a great guy (I’ve talked to him, and he’s super cool).</p>

<p>“And don't get me started on the undergraduate "advising system"”</p>

<p>There isn’t really an undergraduate advising system anymore, so perhaps it was rather pointless.</p>

<p>“I chose a particular faculty member to be my adviser; he was the only guy in my field of interest. When I went to get my study list signed by him, he flatly refused, saying "I don't advise undergraduates."”</p>

<p>This is really rare. Why? Because being a faculty adviser means you don’t have to do a whole lot—make sure the student is on track to graduate, help with choosing courses, etc. There isn’t much you have to do.</p>

<p>“How do Stanford's engineering students fare when pitted against other students in competition? Not well. "NATCAR" is a contest for California electrical engineering students, in which radio controlled cars race around a track.”</p>

<p>HAHAHA, why not pit Stanford students against other engineering students? Didn’t Stanford just win the DARPA challenge? And there are tons of other competitions that Stanford engineers participate in that they also dominate in. (Computer science competitions, green competitions, etc.)</p>

<p>“you'll find that the overwhelming majority did not attend Stanford as an undergraduate, and sometimes, not even as a graduate student”</p>

<p>He has no numbers to support this. He also just states a few well-selected people to “prove” his point.</p>

<p>“The Gates Building houses the entire Computer Science Department. I wonder why Stanford needed to solicit their funds?”</p>

<p>Gates WILLINGLY gave the money. Would Stanford just turn it down? No way.</p>

<p>“although I think that Stanford now will take between 30% to 60% of the income of any invention or other intellectual property you create while working at their labs”</p>

<p>No… just no.</p>

<p>Really, this guy is full of it. His information is outdated (he went to Stanford in the 1980s!), and he’s in the extreme minority of people who didn’t like their Stanford experience. There’s a reason that Stanford students are rated the #1 happiest students. There will of course be people who don’t like the school they attend, and this guy is one of them.</p>

<p>I can’t believe some of you are actually taking this seriously. For every person like him, you could find hundreds more who think the opposite.</p>

29

<p>Son is a junior at Stanford and has never met anyone who takes classes at the community college. This is a very odd statement.
As for high school teacher who scoffed at Stanford, well enough said right there.
As for Stanford undergrads with successful careers, just to name two in the area of my son's interest (film) and who we know: Jay Roach and Mike Tollin. Both of them advised undergrad study at Stanford over USC film school.</p>

30

<p>In my opinion, despite whether what the Stanford grad's post is true or not, Stanford, along with the Ivies, is overrated. Their image is inflated by magazines such as U.S. news. Sure, they are the most prestigious schools in the country, and you will get a good education there; but does prestige necessarily equal the best education?</p>

<p>Stanford and the Ivies have been churning out investment bankers and professionals who work in the finance industry and they mis-predicted this entire financial situation; they're part of the complex combination of reasons as to why we are in this mess right now.</p>

<p>I have a friend that goes there, and she said that although the atmosphere, weather, and social life is awesome, the teachers there are not that great.</p>

<p>Anyway, as an applicant myself this year, I wish people would stop thinking that it is the end of the world if they do not get into HYPS. There are so many better schools out there that need to be discovered... schools such as Rice, Washington University, Oxford College of Emory University, and Emory (who some people treat as safeties on this site-- such a shame)-- even some state schools are probably better. Sure, they may not rank as high as the Ivies or Stanford, but you can get an equal if not better education at these schools. For example, Rice offers 91 classes with only one student... that is hard to beat.</p>

<p>Going to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, or Stanford is not going to guarantee you wealth or status in society. Sure, you will make good connections there and have good opportunities, but it does not mean that you will make a six figure salary when you graduate from these schools. Obviously, a degree from these overrated schools will help a little with employment opportunities, but it does not guarantee employment. In the end, it is up to you.</p>

<p>I applied restrictive early action to Stanford in October, and I got rejected. At first, I was unhappy, but I realize that I am very lucky I got rejected there... I have received so many better offers from other schools. I understand all of you who applied RD really want to go there, like I initially did, but it is not the end of the world if you do not get in. Have confidence that wherever you end up, you will be happy and will succeed! In the end, it is not going to matter where you went to college, but how hard you worked in life. Good luck to you all!</p>

31

<p>As a stanford admit who loves Stanford and was troubled by the article, the reason why I take it seriously is I'm looking to go to the best UNDERGRADUATE school possible. The reasons cited here are similar to what I've heard, and then had anecdotally proven often accidentally by current and former students, about Harvard. That was the reason Harvard doesn't rank among my top choices. </p>

<p>I don't know, I guess this article just coincides with my gradual falling out of the "honeymoon" stage with Stanford as other choices have materialized. (this may be reversed by admit weekend!) But it caused me to question what exactly what is so special about Stanford undergrad? Is it just another Harvard? </p>

<p>Why not go to Princeton or Yale, two schools that are CONSISTENTLY stated as having stronger undergraduate focuses and better advising? Or why not go to a good state school with a merit scholarship? </p>

<p>Believe me, out of love for Stanford I want to be wrong. But I have yet to hear anything in this thread assuaging the overarching fear. And abrasive responses like phantasmagorics, which ignore the big picture, sound so... "Harvard" that it's unsettling. </p>

<p>I don't know where this ramble is going, but maybe if a current student/alum manages to understand my thoughts, they can better address everyone on the thread.</p>

32

<p>In the original article, if you replace Standford wih "HYP" or your dream school, you can pretty much have the same feeling about them.</p>

<p>Tyler09, I don't care who you are, just think how Stanford treated you so far. Don't bad month about Stanford. My son got in Yale and had a full ride to Michigan last year, too. Going where is your choice.</p>

33

<br>


<br>

<p>No school could POSSIBLY live up to the hype HYPS generate.</p>

<p>Tyler09--Any medium to large research university is going to have similar institutional problems when it comes to undergraduate teaching. I can't see where Stanford would be any different from Harvard except that the weather is warmer and the kids more laid back.</p>

<p>The difference between Harvard/Stanford vs. a "good" state school is the intellectual vitality exhibited by a greater portion of the student body. That counts for a lot. My D went to Harvard and says that the student body is Harvard's greatest asset. She had a useful advisor who was quite available to help. </p>

<p>Some people find their life path in college and meet professors who energize them intellectually in that field and with whom they will be great friends forever. This can happen at a large school or a small school. Others are content to take classes that interest them, make lots of new friends, be involved with college ECs, collect the degree and move on.</p>

<p>If you want a school that focuses on the undergrad, then go to a school that focuses on the undergrad, not just SAYS that they focus on the undergrad. I'd be interested in real life stories from Yale or Princeton grads re what this "undergrad focus" means in actual, tangible experiences.</p>

34

<p>And ewho, I don't know who you are either, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't demand I do anything. Thanks. </p>

<p>And, anecdotally, of the schools I'm looking at, Stanford has done the LEAST undergraduate recruitment and has done the least to help me learn more about the school. I'm not badmouthing the school, I have yet to pass any judgement. However if I want to truly learn about the school, I can't let the fact that it has been my "dream" school cause me to give it a pass. </p>

<p>I have heard tangible benefits in undergrad focus at Yale from current students that have contacted me. I hope to hear more about undergrad focus at Stanford as well. I can only go by what others have told me about their experiences.</p>

35

<p>Tyler09, sorry if my little request for keeping a positive attitude toward Stanford is too much. </p>

<p>Last year, 160 students cross-admitted by Stanford/Yale, 80 went to Stanford and 80 went Yale. You can see how hard to make any decisions. I will put the bet on the Stanford side this year to win the cross-admits.</p>

36

<p>I would have to say that the source post for this thread rang true for me, a Cornell engineering grad from the 1980s, and Cal grad from the 1990s. Not the details about so-called alums, but the fact that most of my classes were taught by mediocre professors, "visiting" professors or people with very little interest in teaching undergraduates. Classes were consistently huge, the TAs usually couldn't speak English well and if I tried to get involved in research or various projects, the department bigwigs at Cornell would shove me aside and told me to come back for graduate school.</p>

<p>As a result, most of what I learned in college was self-taught. I consider my degrees (BS Cornell, MS UC-Berkeley) to be a complete waste of money. I wish I could have stayed at Columbia (where I spent my freshman year), rather than transferring to what was then considered to be a more prestigious engineering program.</p>

<p>When I applied to graduate school, I asked my Cornell faculty adviser to write a recommendation for me. I ended up not applying to MIT, so I kept this recommendation from the guy and when I later opened it up, I saw that he had written a 2 sentence recommendation for me stating my class rank and GPA. Although the recommendation did not matter for grad school (very few white Americans go to graduate school for engineering anymore, so I got in), I felt betrayed by this professor's sheer lack of effort.</p>

<p>At graduate school, my professors consistently turned over the classroom teaching to the TAs, who were mostly from South and East Asia. I couldn't understand what most of them were saying, so I ended up not attending class most of the time, and relying on reading the textbooks to prepare for the exam and PhD qualifiers (which I passed). I decided not to pursue a PhD in engineering because of this experience.</p>

<p>A few years later, I decided to take an Organic Chemistry course at my local community college (Union County Community College-NJ), and ended up loving it. The class had 15 students, the professor was wonderful and he also taught the lab, graded the homework and tests, too. After working my butt off and acing the class, he asked me to become a TA for the lab and wrote me a wonderful recommendation to medical school (which I later withdrew when it became clear that I could not be admitted based primarily on my age and race).</p>

<p>So the moral of the story is that the so-called elite schools are overrated in my opinion.</p>

37

<p>ellemenope- I could not agree with you more! No school will EVER live up to the hype generated by HYPS and the other Ivies because we live in a very materialistic, brand-obsessed 21st century society. Just like thousands of Americans dream of owning a Mercedes or Ferrari, thousands of applicants will always strive for HYPS because of the "perfect life" myth associated with these brand names; they think life will be all good if they get a degree from these schools. As long as obsessive parents and elite boarding schools exist, there will also be a lot of hype associated with these schools. In fact, my parents wanted me to apply to the Ivies because they could brag to their friends that I go to such a school and because they think I'll get a superior education there. Discussion forums like these are just inflating their images even more. Just because everyone has heard of these "elite" schools and they rank highly on U.S. News's publications, does that necessarily mean these are the best schools in the country?</p>

<p>Don't get me wrong- One would get an excellent education and opportunities at these schools; that is why I originally applied to Stanford and also some of the Ivies themselves. Earlier in my high school years, I used to obsess over the Ivies, but then I realized their image is inflated by society. Now, I believe that too many people are short-sighted to think that they will ONLY get a great education at HYPS. Everyone can get an equal education, if not better, at hundreds of the other excellent top universities, liberal arts colleges, and state university honors programs throughout the nation. </p>

<p>Sure, these schools will always be prestigous. And there is nothing wrong with striving for these schools. But, in the end, it does not matter where one goes to college, as long as he/she makes the most of it. You may disagree with me, but that's my philosophy on HYPS and college in general.</p>

38

<p>Well as a current undergrad here majoring in EE I feel like I should weigh in...</p>

<p>Firstly, I think its pretty unimportant whether or not the person who wrote this article went to Stanford. I personally think he did, but it doesn't make his arguments any less valid if he didn't, really, since I think they are legitimate concerns.</p>

<p>That being said, I will have to agree with others who will say this kind of thing can be found at any top uni, in fact most national universities-especially in the sciences/engineering-can be fairly or not characterized as such. Yes, the student-faculty ratio is a sham. I don't know who calculates it, or how, but it's a huge deception. This problem is not only Stanford's, one of my parents in the academia concurs with me that this occurs at virtually every university. To look at a real life example, we almost all say we are slightly taller and slimmer than we really are, so don't be surprised that colleges do the same. =)</p>

<p>Also, this guy spends a lot of time talking about the fact that many of the famous people associated with Stanford did not even attend Stanford, but instead attended many other universities for their post-secondary education. To deal with this assertion I'll propose two claims. First off, if you're talented enough to win a Nobel Prize it doesn't matter if you go to Stanford or Kal, you're going to do great things. I mean, many of these people didn't go to schools known for good undergrad or graduate education, so what does that tell you? Secondly, few people have that level of talent, indeed most students here want to go become doctors, lawyers, engineers, investment bankers, professors, researchers etc. I don't know how many of us will win Nobel prizes, become top golf players, or award-winning actresses, but I can only imagine it will be a handful-at the very most-of our class. I know that I probably want to work in finance, and for my career path, Stanford is very good. I don't care whether my idol XXX multi-billionaire banker didn't go to Stanford but instead some other ugrad school, because the outcome would very likely be the same if I attended his school. I won't be a multi-billionaire banker, because it was the person's ambition, not his school, that made him what he is.</p>

<p>About the education, I think it's the same at pretty much all schools with smart student bodies, especially in engineering. I mean to say that Stanford's education was the next logical progression from high school, there was nothing godlike when I started taking classes here, and my friends at our peer schools, including Yale and Princeton agree. I guess this is also related to education, getting to know Professors is a bit of an issue here. Since many classes, especially as a frosh are large and impersonal, I would advise that you take introseminars so you can connect with Profs. I know that the author talks about Osheroff teaching an amateur photography introsem (which is true) but he conveniently forgets to mention that he also teaches Physics 43 E&M. Also, if I'm not mistaken, Leonard Susskind taught a "real" Physics introseminar this past quarter. I'm not going to BS you and say that you can just meet any famous faculty member here, but if you are proactive about it you definitely can meet some.</p>

<p>So for those of you debating Stanford versus Princeton and Yale or any other school perceived to be more undergraduate focused, make sure you really know what you're getting yourself into when you pick the more "undergrad-focused" school. I'm sure there are advantages to attending them that Stanford may not so easily match, but there are also disgruntled alums as well about the quality of their education. In conclusion, your eduction, here at Stanford, and any other school, is dependent on your talent and your attitude. Indeed, it shouldn't be a surprise, nor should you have it any other way. It was your talent and attitude that you got to the point to even considering these top schools, so as long as you don't lose that you'll be fine =)</p>

39

<p>I remeber finding this post a while baack when i was applying for schools...It goes to show that brand name recognition means a lot and that not school is not w/o its weaknesses.</p>

40

<p>I dont understand what the big deal is. One guy hates Stanford and had nothing better to do with his life at the time but write a bunch of horrible things about it. Big deal. im sure u can find someone to say bad things about any school out there. i just dont get all the fuss.</p>