<p>Hi everyone, I am very likely to become a Stanford 2016er this coming fall. There's one thing bothering me though: I've heard about a rumor from various sources, including this site, that the engineering majors at Stanford are somewhat superior than the others (or appear so)? Is this true? While I don't see how this could be a definite conclusion, I do see the reasons why this could happen..</p>
<p>Can any one give me a clue? Or just talk me out of this doubt plz:)</p>
<p>Here’s something I posted about this before - by ‘techie,’ that includes engineering. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In general, engineering majors don’t look down on other students, although I’d say CS students are more likely to be egotistical (showered with the love of Silicon Valley, etc.). Most aren’t bad, but a few particularly annoying individuals can make them seem that way.</p>
<p>If you have a strong desire to be the toast of the town, and you aren’t into the Silicon Valley scene, then you won’t like Stanford. If you’re okay not being the top dog, then Stanford comes back into the picture. </p>
<p>I really view Silicon Valley as the root of the evil in this matter, and the students at Stanford that I find “annoying” are often the ones trying to suck up to the Silicon Valley scene. I’m encouraged that there appears to be an “uprising” against the Silicon Valley hegemony, and that I am far from alone in my feelings on the matter:</p>
<p>-<a href=“http://stanfordflipside.com/2012/04/resed-unveils-entrepreneurship-free-dorm/”>http://stanfordflipside.com/2012/04/resed-unveils-entrepreneurship-free-dorm/</a> (in response to the new e-Dorm for entrepreneurs on campus… check out the number of likes)</p>
<p>Unfortunately, this uprising resulted in personal attacks on a highly visible Stanford student (current student body Vice President) who typifies the Start-up kid. I guess there’s no such thing as a bloodless revolution. Fascinating stuff, really.</p>
<p>Senior, I agree that it’s been interesting to hear all the different views on campus about the emphasis on entrepreneurship. However, the student who was the object of all the lampooning doesn’t really typify the Start-Up kids here; he’s much more of an intensely-naive caricature. The self-promotion and buzzwords were there in infinite supply, but ideas, not so much. The real archetypal Start-Up Kids are the Mayfield Fellows.</p>
<p>^Thanks for the clarification, that’s what I meant by “typify.” Well kind of, actually. </p>
<p>My definition of start-up kid goes back to a Daily op-ed on the subject (<a href=“http://www.stanforddaily.com/2011/09/29/op-ed-a-new-strain-of-“techie-evangelism”/[/url]”>A ‘Za Star). It’s a negative label, and those who do start-ups are not necessarily start-up kids. Just like those who take IHUM are not necessarily IHUM kids. With this definition in mind, the student in question is representative of that mentality, and there are others like him. </p>
<p>I think much more highly of the Mayfield Fellows. Which goes back to my point earlier. The Mayfield Fellows I know, though perhaps helped by Silicon Valley, are not a product of it and do not kowtow to it (for the most part). It’s not entrepreneurship that’s the problem. It’s Silicon Valley and how that has skewed the definition of entrepreneurship to software start-ups. As if that’s the only kind of start-up valuable in this world.</p>