<p>I think these are both somewhat narrow views, though I’ll admit I am biased to support the latter a bit more. Stanford is a school whose every department basically is top notch, and is internationally very well regarded in an extreme way. That doesn’t mean there aren’t legitimate reasons for going elsewhere, but I’d think it’s pretty clear that you should err on the side of Stanford if you’re not sure where to go. </p>
<p>If you have some more specific views about why each school would be a good fit for you, you should share them, and that might help posters realize that one is more glaringly a fit for you…though I think mainly you have to do the reflection yourself.</p>
<p>*Dartmouth is 2/3 undergrads, Stanford is 2/3 grad students. Consider Dartmouth and the8n Stanford. *</p>
<p>Most sources report Stanford’s student body to be 6700 undergrad, 8100 grad/professional. That’s hardly anywhere near two thirds. </p>
<p>And these numbers can be misleading. As one current undergrad put it “I’m always baffled by the statistic of how many grad students there are here because I don’t know where they all are.”</p>
<p>Yeah phantasmagoric makes an excellent point. Berkeley is the perfect example of an almost completely grad-focused university with a huge population of undergrads, and basically my own point is – so what if Stanford is more grad-focused than a small LAC? I mean, it so happens to be a research powerhouse, and that in and of itself should be an attractive reason to attend the school for many students. </p>
<p>Actually, check this out – the fact that Berkeley has this enormous pool of undergraduates actually is because they admit several underqualified students, whom frankly, the likes of the brilliant faculty there have little to do with. Whereas, I’ve seen personally how friendly the faculty can be with the bright graduate students, who can form an elite lot. I.e., the point is the vastly more elite nature of Berkeley grad school as compared to Berkeley undergrad is represented in the numbers. Maybe having way too many undergraduates would in some sense mean a smaller undergraduate focus, because everyone’s just another face!</p>
<p>^ Well, it is possible to disagree based on personal philosophy, but why do you happen to disagree, I am curious? What do you have to say about the statistic about Berkeley – would you seriously consider Berkeley to be more undergraduate focused than Stanford? I as a UC Berkeley student myself can say that’s literally impossible to think of, no agreeing or disagreeing allowed for.</p>
<p>This is true, though I think to be fair, Stanford is an order of magnitude more known of these two for being a good school for undergrads. Now, frankly, I am not qualified to say how much of an effort it * really * makes to make things cozy for undergrads, how small the classes most people have to go through really are (even if most classes are small, it may be that these are a collection of obscure classes). I do, however, not understand why one would favor Dartmouth explicitly. </p>
<p>To give an idea, Dartmouth wasn’t even on my list of schools applied to simply because I wasn’t considering it, and I really wanted to attend either Berkeley or Stanford, though that’s probably partially because I was sure I wanted a big research university environment, and don’t distinguish between undergraduate and graduate rankings much (also because I am a California fan).</p>
<p>Well, I have a hard time seeing how being on the same campus as students attending these top grad schools outweighs the benefits of smaller classes and professors’ personal attention that undergrads enjoy at the small schools, all other things being equal (e.g., availability of your major). I went to a huge school (35,000) and wish I had attended a small one. OTOH, there are comparatively so few seats at the small schools (and they’re generally filled) that there’s not really much point in talking about it.</p>
<p>I see. Well, the thing is, usually the “other factors” are not equal! Larger schools tend to have many more course offerings, which can be conducted at a very high level if the students in the school are up to benefiting from them. For instance, Harvard’s course selection in math is pretty attractive to me. I would rather have those classes with less undergraduate focus than not have them with more undergraduate focus.</p>
<p>Further, at Berkeley I have managed to take only math courses which have < 15 students. That’s pretty incredibly good, you have to say. The upper division courses often only have 30 spots, sometimes 40, in several departments. Now maybe some departments don’t have the same resources, but let’s at least say, Stanford probably maintains smaller class sizes on average than the ones I normally would find at my school. It really doesn’t seem so bad that I’d be so naturally inclined to avoid these larger schools. </p>
<p>All other things being equal, however, I would obviously and clearly want smaller class sizes if I could have them. Getting to know professors is a pleasure.</p>
<p>Stanford may have a lot of grad students, to be sure, but it also has a lot of undergrads and Stanford is very aware of this. Undergrads make up a very significant percentage of Stanford’s student body and it makes sure it satisfies them to the fullest extent possible.</p>
<p>Now, the upside to attending a school like Stanford with many grad departments is that undergrads are allowed to take classes in pretty much all of them. As an undergrad you can register for courses in the law school, the engineering school, the med school, etc. So in this way, your opportunities are infinitely greater than if you attended a smaller school like Dartmouth.
Furthermore, if research is your thing, then attending a school with extensive grad programs can be beneficial. Graduate departments spend most of their time researching rather than organizing classes and are also very willing to recruit undergrads to help with this research. At a school like Dartmouth with fewer grad programs, there is inherently less research going on and thus less opportunities. </p>
<p>Furthermore, to a certain extent, the size of your school doesn’t matter in terms of faculty contact because smaller schools tend to have less faculty members while larger schools have more. Dartmouth, with a relatively small student body, has only 650 professors. Stanford’s student body, although much larger, is taken care of by 1800 professors. The ratios are pretty similar for both schools. </p>
<p>Lastly, grad student TAs can often be better at explaining things than professors if you need help, at any school. Many grad TAs are PhD candidates who are well versed in their respective fields anyway, so they generally should know what they’re talking about.</p>
<p>Edit: And on the non-academic/social side of things, Stanford is definitely an undergrad dominated campus. Over 90% of undergrads live on campus while less than 40% of graduate students do (and most of them are relegated to the boondocks known as Escondido Village-far away from everyone else). Pretty much all the clubs, sporting events, music groups, whatever that there is to join at Stanford will only have undergrads participating. I don’t think you’ll find a PhD student on the football team or in an a capella group so in this respect Stanford (as well as any other mega research university) is indeed undergrad focused.</p>
<p>While I would imagine Stanford research opportunities <em>probably</em> outdo Darmouth’s, I’d be a little careful about this reasoning. If you take a small school like Harvey Mudd, which is hardly a research school, the faculty primarily being paid to teach, and there being no graduate department, it is designed to produce students ready for grad school. Now of course Dartmouth isn’t the same kind of school as this, but I wanted to point out that just because professors are doing top caliber research doesn’t mean undergrads can do ANY at all. After all, the professors aren’t paid to cater to undergrads – they’re paid because they’re some of the best researchers in the planet, hands down. It so happens that several of them are benevolent souls who are willing to help the likes of us students. At an undergraduate focused school, it is possible to <em>make sure</em> the undergrads get their hands on research. For reference, talk to the friendly neighborhood Mudd students. </p>
<p>Also, I believe Vossron is a Reed parent – forgive if I’m mistaken. Reed has a reputation of being a grad school prep school, and I imagine similar remarks apply to it.</p>
<p>^Point well taken. I should have been a bit more specific. Not all research universities are as willing to allow undergrads to participate in research as others, but Stanford in particular is a school that prides itself on the accessibilty of research to undergrads and (from what I’ve read) spends the most money out of any school to fund undergraduate research opportunities.
You’re definitely correct in your assertion that small undergrad only schools like Harvey Mudd are just as capable of research. But in comparing Stanford to Dartmouth, there is no comparison, IMO.</p>
<p>My sentiment exactly. The undergrads are the spirit of Stanford. Even though I know there are more grads here than undergrads, I cannot for the life of me see where all these grad students are hiding.</p>
<p>I don’t really see how having grads on Stanford’s campus would detract from the undergrad experinece…as the current students are saying, it’s not like you definitely know which ones they are and it seems like profs are focused on undergrads as well. It would seem to give more opportunity to me.</p>
