<p>I think MIT also lost a lot of money on its expansion into Kendall Square. It bought property and started construction based on the pricings and prospects at the height of the Internet boom, then got stuck having to continue after the market tanked. Instead of developing a second Silicon Valley in Cambridge, a lot of unnecessary office space was created.</p>
<p>When talking about technology inventions, it is Stanford that leads the way.
Stanford has a long list of ledendary engineers who have made foundamental contributions in technology inventions and advancements. </p>
<p>Examples (including 18 Turing award winners):</p>
<p>Sam Araki (BS, MS), designer of spy sattelite.
Andy Bechtolsheim (Ph.D. dropout), designer of the first Unix workstation
Dave Boggs (Ph.D.), co-inventor of Ethernet
Rodney Brooks (Ph.D. 1981), Director of MIT computer science and artificial intelligence lab
Vint Cerf (B.S. 1965), Internet pioneer, Turing award winning computer scientist
John Cioffi (M.S., Ph.D.), father of DSL (broad band internet connection)<br>
Ted Hoff (Ph.D. 1962), inventor of microprocessor
John Hopcroft (Ph.D 1964), Turing award winning computer scientist
Alan Kay (Postdoc), Turing award winning computer scientist
Cleve Moler (Ph.D.) and John N. Little (M.E. 1980), creators of MATLAB
Hans Moravec (Ph.D. 1980), designer of Stanford CART, the first computer-controlled robot cart
Alan Newell (B.S.), pioneer of artificial intelligence, Turing award winning computer scientist
Amir Pnueli (Postdoc), Turing award winning computer scientist
Raj Reddy (Ph.D. 1966), Turing award winning computer scientist, founder of robotics institute at Carnegie Mellon University.
Ronald Rivest (Ph.D. 1974), cryptographer, Turing award winning computer scientist
Edward Shortliffe (Ph.D.), inventor of the rule-based pharmacological expert system: Mycin
Robert Tarjan (Ph.D. 1972), Turing award winning computer scientist
John Chowning (Ph.D), father of digital music synthesizer, inventor of frequency modulation (FM) algorithm
Paul W Klipsch (M.S. 1934), high-fidelity audio pioneer
Bradford Parkinson (Ph.D. 1966 and long tim faculty), inventor of global positioning system (GPS)
Calvin Quate (Ph.D. 1950), inventor of the atomic force microscope
Victor Scheinman (Ph.D.), inventor of programmable robot arm<br>
Frederick Terman (M.S. 1922), father of Silicon Valley, former professor in electrical engineering, National Medal of Science winner
Russell Varian and Sigurd Varian, co-inventor of klystron, the foundation of radar
Oswald Villard Jr. (Ph.d., EE and long time faculty), father of 'Over the horizon' radar
Douglas Engelbart, Turing award-winning computer scientist, inventor of the computer mouse, former researcher.
Edward Feigenbaum, Turing award-winning computer scientist, father of expert system
Robert Floyd, former faculty, Turing award winning computer scientist
John L. Hennessy, pioneer in RISC, President of Stanford
Antony Hoare, former faculty, Turing award winning computer scientist
Donald Knuth, creator of TeX and computer science pioneer and professor emeritus, Turing award winner, author of The Art of Computer Programming
John McCarthy, responsible for the coining of the term Artificial Intelligence, and inventor of the Lisp programming language, Turing award winner
Robert Metcalfe, former faculty, co-inventor of Ethernet
Robin Milner former faculty, Turing award winning computer scientist
Dana Scott former faculty, Turing award winning computer scientist
Sebastian Thrun director of Stanford AI LAB, team leader of Stanford driverless car racing team, whose entry STANLEY won 2005 DARPA grand challenge.
Niklaus Wirth former faculty, Turing award winning computer scientist, inventor of PASCAL
Andrew Yao, former faculty, Turing award winning computer scientist
William Yeager, inventor of multi-protocal internet router</p>
<p>Some proffesional posters are becoming defensive. I should clarify, I mean no disrespect to anyone. MIT is a good institute and all that. However, by raising the question, I simply state my observation in the industry. I see no hot products out of MIT, no name company. I see Caltech on Mars, I use stnford technology writing in this forum. I use a compuetr from a company started in a Texan university and so on. Yes, I know MIT developed the Jet engine but there are indications that original spirit may have been lost. For example, MIT is ranked below some university in southern california, besides Caletech in terms of number of patents. It is ranked way below Princeton,a liberal arts university, in terms of the number of companies started. Now, is that what you expect from the "top" school?</p>
<p>56k digital modem, invented by stanford ph.d and prof Brent Townshend
DNA microarray technology, invented by prof Patric Brown
Gene cloning, prof Cohen Stanley, co-father of biotechnology
oral birth control pill, invented by prof Carl Djerassi
bootstrap sampling, invented by stastistics prof Brad Efron
simplex method for linear programming, invented by prof George Dantzig
heart transplantation technology, invented by Prof Norman Shumway
Forgaty ballon catheter, invented by prof Thomas Fogarty
fluorescent-activated cell sorting, invented by prof Leonard Herzenberg</p>
<p>By the way, I finally looked at Olin. Yes it does seem to be a promising school. Actually, the school was established to change engineering education. To their credit, in the short history, they have been very successful. An alarming point is that a few of their professors used to be teaching at MIT. Doesn't that mean anything?</p>
<p>One site I frequently visit to see what technology innovation occurs is
<a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/%5B/url%5D">http://www.technologyreview.com/</a>.
To me it is obvious MIT continues to contribute a fair amount of current innovation.</p>
<p>The fact that Olin has some MIT professor means that they had the money to pay them more. I went to a speech by the Provost of MIT, and basically any college with the money could take a good majority of MIT's staff. Basically the idea was Harvard could become the number one engineering school in the nation, it just doesn't want to use its money on that.</p>
<p>So yeah, it means nothing except MIT didn't want to match Olin's offer most likely.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think MIT has lost the battle in information technology to Stanford. </p>
<hr>
<p>I think almost everybody aggrees Silicon Valley is the capital of information technology. Boston is a far cry #2. The major reason is that Stanford drives silicon valley, while MIT drives Boston's route 128.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yet I would hardly say that that means that Stanford has somehow 'won'. After all, nobody is restricted to stay where they are. To say so is similar to arguing that Oxford and Cambridge have never been strong because the towns of Oxford and Cambridge have never been particularly economically strong, compared to London. Plenty of people in Silicon Valley come from elsewhere. </p>
<p>
[quote]
When talking about technology inventions, it is Stanford that leads the way.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh? Shall I list a bunch of parallel MIT inventors and inventions? It seems to me that you gave up when we drew swords last time and were willing to concede that the 2 schools are tied (which is my position). </p>
<p>
[quote]
I simply state my observation in the industry. I see no hot products out of MIT, no name company
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No name company, no hot products, eh? Let me give you just a sample. Maybe you've heard of a few.</p>
<p>Intel, co-founded by MIT graduate Robert Noyce. I think it's quite likely that your computer is using an Intel processor.<br>
Texas Instruments, co-founded by MIT graduate Cecil Green. (Note, TI is the 3rd largest semiconductor firm in the world after Intel and Samsung). I think it's quite likely that your cellphone has a TI DSP inside it.<br>
Qualcomm, co-founded by 2 MIT graduates, Andrew Viterbi and Irwin Jacobs
Genentech co-founded by MIT graduate Robert Swanson
Bose Technology, co-founded by MIT graduate and professor, Amar Bose</p>
<p>You should also consider MIT's history. MIT for most of its history has been an industrial school - meaning that the companies that it founds tend to be industrial, producer-good companies that are not 'famous' because they don't sell consumer goods, but are nevertheless tremendously important. For example, MIT has had long-standing ties to the military-industrial complex and thus many companies that MIT people have founded are defense contractors that regular people have never heard of because regular people (I hope) don't go around buying guided missiles and or fighter aircraft. For example, MIT people founded Raytheon, EG&G, McDonnell Douglas, and Rockwell. Other producer-good firms founded by MIT graduates include Analog Devices, Rambus, Thermo Electron Group, and Teradyne.</p>
<p>But if you want a simple example of a powerful person, consider Ben Bernanke, head of the Fed. He is basically the 2nd most powerful man in the world. He's an MIT graduate. </p>
<p>But look. The bottom line is this. MIT has been ranked the #1 engineering school in USNews (both grad + undergrad) in every single year that those rankings have measured engineering. What more do you want? </p>
<p>
[quote]
It is ranked way below Princeton,a liberal arts university, in terms of the number of companies started.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would like to know more about this. Do you have data to support this?</p>
<p>Posts #18-#25 are the most hilarious sockpuppet/troll party I've ever seen. A whole flock is upon us, evidently.</p>
<p>
[quote]
MIT golden days are past. It has not maintained its undergraduate admissions standards as Caltech has. Its decisions to artificially gender- and race-balance itself, pander to political correctness (LSE used to screen porno movies, now we get Chomsky lectures),
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Seems to me that Stanford has used affirmative action and other non-academic admissions crtieria just as aggressively, and almost certainly more so, than MIT has. For example, Stanford still provides a tremendous admissions boon to legacies, whereas the MIT legacy admissions boost is virtually non-existent. Stanford provides a tremendous admissions boost to athletes. Why is it OK for Stanford to do that, but not OK for MIT?</p>
<p>Understand this is MIT forum. I saw some people claim "MIT=engineeiring, engineering=MIT". To me that is sort of baseless.</p>
<p>When I think which university has changed my daily life and made it better, the university that often comes into my mind is Stanford, not MIT.</p>
<p>When I was in graduate school, I used Microsoft word and Latex to write my class project reports and ph.d thesis. Microsoft word was created by a Stanford ph.d. Latex is based on TEX, an invention by Stanford Professor Don Knuth. When I took engineering related classes, I used MATLAB for computing and simulation. MATLAB is still a tool I am using in my work. MATLAB was invented by Stanford graduates Cleve Moler and John Little (acknowlleged that John Little is a MIT graduate as well). I use Yahoo everyday for checking weather and looking for driving directions. I use Google everyday, to search and learn new stuff. Even my little son uses Google to gather information for his school projects. Both Yahoo and Google were invented by Stanford Ph.d students. I know my computer is powered by an Intel chip and the first chip was invented by Ted Hoff, a Stanford Ph.d. My computer and laptop are linked to the internet through a CYSCO router box. CYSCO is founded by Stanford people. And Stanford engineer Bill Yeager invented the multiprotocol router. My broad band internet connection was based on Stanford's john Cioffi's DSL technology. In the past, I used 56k modem for internet connection, which was also invented by a Stanford ph.d and professor Brent Townshend. I know the internet is ruled by TCP/IP protocol. The TCP/IP was designed by Vinton Cerf and Bob Kahn. Cerf is a Stanford graduate and a former professor. The computer mouse I am using now is invented by SRI's Doug Engelbart. SRI (the Stanford Research Institute) used to be a part of Stanford University. The most powerful computer in my company was made by SUN, which stands for STANFORD UNIVERSITY NETWORK. And a Stanford ph.d dropout Andy Bechtosheim designed the first SUN workstation on Stanford's compus.
I recently bought a GPS device for my car. I rely on it heavily when travell to a place I have never gone before. I know GPS was an invention by Stanford's ph.d. and professor Bradford Parkinson.</p>
<p>So when thinking about the modern technologies that impact my life, it is Stanford, Stanford, and Stanford.</p>
<p>Evidently Stanford also produces the most persistent, delicious trolling there is to be had. A selective list like this proves nothing, and your overwhelmingly clear bias ensures that few people will take you seriously.</p>
<p>Just a few comments:</p>
<p>The US News Rankings are approximately as useful as solar powered flashlight.</p>
<p>MIT students are still nerds. Trust me, I go here, and I am one.</p>
<p>Oh no! Not neuroscience! What "soft" science will they come up with next?! If it's not physics, it must be useless. And if only we had a medical school, we could suddenly become cool, like Harvard!</p>
<p>I was trying to form a response to the long, boring list of technologies that I'm sure less than half of us actually read, but then Ben said it better than I could have:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Posts #18-#25 are the most hilarious sockpuppet/troll party I've ever seen. A whole flock is upon us, evidently.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Evidently Stanford also produces the most persistent, delicious trolling there is to be had. A selective list like this proves nothing, and your overwhelmingly clear bias ensures that few people will take you seriously.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Also, one last thing. If one more person implies that my ovaries make me dumber than my classmates, this WILL get ugly. That's a promise.</p>
<p>To be fair, Stanford is an excellent university.</p>
<p>Hey, Ben. I have no connection to Stanford. You think my list is 'selective'? Provide your 'selective' MIT list that impact your daily life then. </p>
<p>I'm NOT biased but I do have impressions. Based on the data I collected, Stanford>MIT in engineering, at least in engineering inventions since 1970.</p>
<p>I am happy to see this thread is turning out to be a place where some professional posters practice their sense of humor. </p>
<p>But, the original question remains.</p>
<p>Well to be fair, its kinda hard to be serious when you're replying to someone who thinks that a list of 10-15 innovations somehow proves that one institution has made a greater contribution to engineering than another. You realize that both of these institutions pump out hundreds of inventions and scientific discoveries every year. If you really want a list of what MIT researchers have achieved, just go read the wikipedia article... do some research of your own, and you'll find that MIT technologies have been just as influential in your life as Stanford's has.</p>
<p>Anyways, to go back to the original question,</p>
<p>
[quote]
In recent years, all major innovations are coming out ofplaces such as Stanford, Berkeley, and even Caltech. When I was going to school MIT was the only name in town. Now peopole have to think twicw between MIT and other places, some such as Olin which I never heard of. It certainly seems MIT is fast becoming a "have been." What do you think?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The fact that Stanford, Berkeley, and Caltech (I don't know why you have an "even" there) are excellent institutions does not mean that MIT is somehow becoming a "have been". Other than the people in this thread, I don't think anyone questions that MIT still remains as one of the greatest technological research centers in the world. In fact, since collaboration is central to science, the rise in prominance of all these other institutions should help, not hinder, MIT's research and innovation. It's not like there's some competition between MIT, Stanford, Caltech, etc. Openess and sharing of knowledge is central to innovation, and the more research institutions there are, the better.</p>
<p>And also, there's a difference between the companies that Stanford graduates start (MIT has plenty of those as well) and technologies developed at Stanford.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You think my list is 'selective'? Provide your 'selective' MIT list that impact your daily life then.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>lol! Fight fire with fire?</p>
<p>What I find really amusing here is that some people seem to think that if you say X N times, then X becomes true as N->infinity. You haven't addressed sakky's post #28, nor LauraN's #33, but responded with more lists. You've demonstrated that Stanford is good, but you haven't demonstrated that MIT isn't. Not much of a debate if the winner is the one who can count more inventions, since any top university will have some very good companies and innovators to its credit.</p>
<p>Spawning new businesses is not vital to determining the quality, value, or long term usefulness of the undergraduate education.</p>
<p>datalook, how many of the long list of people you posted in #22 earned degrees at MIT? I suspect a lot!</p>
<p>And OTOH, I see people like Ronald Rivest listed, who is currently a professor at MIT.</p>
<p>Both institutions are filled with graduates of each other. Not sure if it's still true today, but Stanford had more MIT graduates among its grad students and faculty than from any other institution.</p>
<p>Studying in the engineering department from either school is a fabulous opportunity. And the best is to earn a degree from each.</p>
<p>Hey, WS17. Do you know if that was the case for MIT graduate school too? I mean where does MIT get its graduate students?</p>