<p>well, i commend you on being a CS fan...they don't make many of those LOL.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Try to refute my arguments, not attack me.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First, CS is not the only important thing in the world. You are arguing that MIT has dropped because you think that Stanford is (slightly) better in this field. This doesn't mean that the school as a whole is worse.</p>
<p>Even if Stanford is better than MIT in CS, it obviously is not by a long shot. Maybe it is slightly better, maybe not. </p>
<p>Again, MIT never has been and never will be the only important engineering school. It is one of a number of elite schools. I don't think it has dropped. It is arguably (you can argue for or against, but I don't think you can say it isn't in the running) the best engineering school. That is really all any school can hope for. No one is hands-down the best.</p>
<p>
So Stanford's 4.97 can be explained as 97% of the people who participated the evaluation gave Stanford a 'distinguished' score, while 3% gave Stanford a 'very strong' score. But for MIT, only 91% of the people gave it a 'distinguished' score, while 9% gave it a 'very strong' score. That is the difference.
I may just be a beginning statistics student, but the difference between .03 and .09 is very unlikely to be statistically significant. Odds are it could have gone either way. (I am attending Stanford, by the way, but MIT was my #1 choice before I was rejected.)</p>
<p>I don't understand the point of this thread either.</p>
<p>mynameisntneo,</p>
<p>Good question. I believe Stanford's 0.03 is statistically significantly lower than MIT's 0.09. Or in another word, the proportion of the people who think Stanford CS as 'distinguished' (97%) is significantly higher than the proportion of the people who think MIT CS as 'distinguished' (91%).</p>
<p>Let's do some statistics here. Assume pi1 is the true proportion of the people evaluating Stanford as distinguished, and pi2 is the true proportion of the people evaluating MIT as distinguished. Based on the data, we come up with the estimates of pi1 and pi2: p1=0.97 and p2=0.91. Unfortunately, I don't know how many people participated the evaluation. Let's assume n is the number.</p>
<p>Nonhypothesis: pi1=pi2
Alternative: p11>pi2
This is a 1-sided test.</p>
<p>If the nonhypothesis is true, then pi1=pi2=pi. The estimate of pi would be p=(p1+p2)/2=0.94. The test statistic (p1-p2)/sqrt(2*p(1-p)/n) is approximately normal when n is big enough. The following is the test statistics for different values of n:</p>
<p>n test-statistic p-value
50 1.26 0.10
100 1.79 0.0367
200 2.53 0.0057
300 3.09 0.0010</p>
<p>So if 50 people participated the evaluation, the p-value is already 0.10, small enough to lead a suspect that Stanford is more distinguished than MIT. If 100 people or more participated the evaluation, according to the hypothesis test, Stanford is more distinguished than MIT. Considering that CS is such a big field, usually the CS department heads and the directors of CS graduate programs across the country were invited to participate the evaluation. Perhaps not all of them returned the evaluation forms. But at the end I believe n, the number of participants, is bigger than 100 at least. Hence Stanford CS is more distinguished according to the hypothesis test.</p>
<p>I wonder if Jones's issue would change MIT.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Again, Licklider contributed nothing to packet switching and TCP/IP, which govern today's internet.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Licklider contributed the idea of a global network and inspired the first inventors of it. Without him, the idea for such a global network wouldn't even exist and packet switching and TCP/IP, if they would have ever been invented at all, would be just niche technologies used in localized networks. </p>
<p>
[quote]
If Roberts or Kleinrock can win top notched prizes such as Turing award, national medal of technology, and medal of freedom, as Cerf and Kahn already did. I might agree with your argument. But honestly, I think their chance is very very small, if any.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Kahn has nothing to do with Stanford. Kleinrock and Roberts have to do with MIT. </p>
<p>
[quote]
By the way, I'm still waiting for you to tell me MIT's contribution to internet after its birth. How can you match Stanford's
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So are you conceding that the birth Internet had more to do with MIT than with Stanford (i.e. Kleinrock + Roberts > Cerf)? </p>
<p>
[quote]
I can not find the link now that Stanford was ranked ahead of MIT CS. But MIT has never been ranked ahead of Stanford in CS by US NEWS, which I am 100% sure.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So you are withdrawing your previous claim that Stanford was ranked ahead of MIT CS in USNews? </p>
<p>And what about the ranking of 'computer engineering' in USNews this year? Who is ranked below who? I see. </p>
<p>
[quote]
3) Stanford has created more mile stones: microprosessor, DSL, digital music synthesis, RISC, STANLEY driverless car, Stanford arm, Stanford cart, multiprotocol router, and etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Are they really more important than, say, the integrated circuit, radar, the jet engine, the W3C, the minicomputer, GNU and the FSF, Xwindows, and Kerberos?</p>
<p>
[quote]
The 'X-Lab' List (Overall Ranking)
BUSINESS WEEK's poll included this question: If you were 35 and had just won the first Nobel Prize for Information Technology, triggering invitations to the lab of your choice, which one would you pick? Most researchers did not choose the lab where they work. Here are the results:
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I see that you conviniently managed to exclude the fact that this ranking is 10 years old. Wouldn't your argument be a little better if you quoted data that is actually recent? I am quite certain that I can go back through historical archives to dig up an old ranking that shows that MIT is better than Stanford. But what exactly would that prove?</p>
<p>
[quote]
In terms of faculty reputation by NRC ranking,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, a 12 year old ranking. I'm sure we're all waiting with baited breath for the new NRC ranking to come out, which should appear in the next year. If the new NRC ranking shows that MIT is better than Stanford, are you prepared to come back and withdraw your claims? Somehow I doubt you will.</p>
<p>I have a suggestion. Why not come up with actual * recent * rankings that show that Stanford is better than MIT. You always concede that MIT was better than Stanford in past history, but then YOU YOURSELF choose to invoke rankings from past history to prove your case. Instead of that, why don't you show some recent rankings that all show that Stanford is better than MIT? Oh wait, you can't.</p>
<p>maybe after the whole dean fraud fiasco...</p>
<p>Now it makes sense why MIT has not been able to keep up with its old reputation. Under a leadership of a liar things do not end up any better. Perhaps MIT should check the background of all its employees. Dishonesty is catching.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I see that you conviniently managed to exclude the fact that this ranking is 10 years old. Wouldn't your argument be a little better if you quoted data that is actually recent? I am quite certain that I can go back through historical archives to dig up an old ranking that shows that MIT is better than Stanford. But what exactly would that prove?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nobody tried to hide the fact that the survey was done 1997. This was the latest one I could find. The survey clearly proved Stanford was the most attractive place for IT professionals. As I said, MIT had been better before 1970, while Stanford has been better since 1970.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Again, a 12 year old ranking. I'm sure we're all waiting with baited breath for the new NRC ranking to come out, which should appear in the next year. If the new NRC ranking shows that MIT is better than Stanford, are you prepared to come back and withdraw your claims? Somehow I doubt you will.
[/quote]
Let's talk it over who is the real best engineering school after the new NRC ranking comes out.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Are they really more important than, say, the integrated circuit, radar, the jet engine, the W3C, the minicomputer, GNU and the FSF, Xwindows, and Kerberos?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of cource I am not the final judge. But I do feel Stanford's inventions are more profound, and more significantly changed our life.</p>
<p>By the way, in terms of RADAR, I believe Stanford has contributed as much as MIT, if not more.</p>
<p>In terms of internet, I have clearly stated Stanford > MIT in birth of the internet. Over the years after the birth of the internet, Stanford has contributed a lot more than MIT to internet.</p>
<p>Don't get me wrong. MIT is a great engineering school. But in my personal view, Stanford has done more in creating and shaping modern technologies.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Nobody tried to hide the fact that the survey was done 1997. This was the latest one I could find. The survey clearly proved Stanford was the most attractive place for IT professionals. As I said, MIT had been better before 1970, while Stanford has been better since 1970.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But like I said, wouldn't it be more relevant to find TODAY's ranking? High technology changes so fast that a ranking of 10 years ago is quite irrelevant. What matters is NOW. </p>
<p>Oh, by the way, there is a current ranking - the USNews ranking. And how do MIT and Stanford match up in that ranking. Oh, I see. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Let's talk it over who is the real best engineering school after the new NRC ranking comes out.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, it seems to me that the NRC ranking that you constantly quote actually shows that MIT beats Stanford in terms of more highly ranked engineering categories. So already, the NRC does not support your assertions. </p>
<p>But anyway, let's come back after the new ranking is out. Somehow, if it shows that MIT, once again, beats Stanford, I doubt that you will come back. </p>
<p>
[quote]
By the way, in terms of RADAR, I believe Stanford has contributed as much as MIT, if not more.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Would this be the same analysis that made you convinced that Stanford has contributed more to GPS, a claim that you now have seemed to have withdrawn?</p>
<p>I'm usually a fan of pointless debate, but this is extremely useless. If MIT was losing anything, it wouldn't be to Stanford.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Would this be the same analysis that made you convinced that Stanford has contributed more to GPS, a claim that you now have seemed to have withdrawn?
[/quote]
I think Einstein contributed more to GPS. Hah. Princeton wins.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But like I said, wouldn't it be more relevant to find TODAY's ranking? High technology changes so fast that a ranking of 10 years ago is quite irrelevant.
[/quote]
Does that mean you admit Stanford was better than MIT in high tech as of 1997?
[quote]
Well, it seems to me that the NRC ranking that you constantly quote actually shows that MIT beats Stanford in terms of more highly ranked engineering categories. So already, the NRC does not support your assertions
[/quote]
Check the NRC ranking again: <a href="http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:uuNggt96qBsJ:www.grad.berkeley.edu/publications/pdf/nrc_rankings_1995.pdf+nrc+ph.d+ranking,+stanford,+mit&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us%5B/url%5D">http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:uuNggt96qBsJ:www.grad.berkeley.edu/publications/pdf/nrc_rankings_1995.pdf+nrc+ph.d+ranking,+stanford,+mit&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us</a>.
Stanford beats MIT in electrical engineering, computer science, mechanical engineering, and industrial engineering. MIT beats Stanford in materials science, biomedical engineering, chemical engineering, and Aerospace engineering. If you count the numbers, it looks like a 4 to 4 tie. But Stanford won the big 3 fields (EE, CS, ME). Anyway, let's wait for the new NRC ranking.
[quote]
Would this be the same analysis that made you convinced that Stanford has contributed more to GPS, a claim that you now have seemed to have withdrawn?
[/quote]
Whether it is radar or GPS, it is debatable who made more contributions. As for radar, Stanford engineers invented klystron, the foundation of radar, and the "over the horizon radar". See the following links.
<a href="http://www.stanford.edu/home/welcome/research/klystron.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.stanford.edu/home/welcome/research/klystron.html</a>
<a href="http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/october26/chodorow-102605.html%5B/url%5D">http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/october26/chodorow-102605.html</a>
<a href="http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2004/january28/villardobit-128.html%5B/url%5D">http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2004/january28/villardobit-128.html</a>
What is MIT's fundamental inventions in radar? I don't know.</p>
<p>As for GPS, MIT's Ivan Getting made his contribution before 1960, after that, Bradford Parkinson (MIT master, Stanford Ph.d and long time Stanford professor) took it over. Over the years, Stanford's GPS center has been the leader in GPS technology. Again, MIT has done little in GPS since 1970. It proves again that MIT was better in engineering before 1970, while Stanford has been better since 1970.</p>
<p>Finally, let me ask you again. Have you found how many Turing award winners are associated with MIT? Stanford has 18 ties without even counting the visiting professors. So Stanford has much more Turing award ties. You don't want to challenge that. Right?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Does that mean you admit Stanford was better than MIT in high tech as of 1997?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't know - does that mean that you admit MIT is better than Stanford today? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Check the NRC ranking again: <a href="http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=1&gl=us%5B/url%5D">http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=1&gl=us</a>.
Stanford beats MIT in electrical engineering, computer science, mechanical engineering, and industrial engineering. MIT beats Stanford in materials science, biomedical engineering, chemical engineering, and Aerospace engineering. If you count the numbers, it looks like a 4 to 4 tie.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, no, YOU check the NRC ranking again. You forgot Civil Engineering. Oopsies .</p>
<p>Hence, it's a 5-4 MIT victory. Would you like to play again? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Whether it is radar or GPS, it is debatable who made more contributions
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, so now it's "debateable". I seem to remember how you claimed in the past that GPS was all Stanford. What happened? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Finally, let me ask you again. Have you found how many Turing award winners are associated with MIT? Stanford has 18 ties without even counting the visiting professors. So Stanford has much more Turing award ties. You don't want to challenge that. Right?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And let me ask you - whose ranked higher in the current USNews for engineering? You don't want to challenge that, right?</p>
<p>Hey guys my intellectual-phallus is bigger than your intellectual-phallus let's engage in digital phallic combat this should be fun right guys am I right?</p>
<p>I thank everyone in this thread. Never in my life did I think I'd have the opportunity to use the term "phallic combat." You have given me a great treasure this day.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't know - does that mean that you admit MIT is better than Stanford today?
[/quote]
So that means the 1997 bussiness week survey from IT professionals does not mean anything to you. Right? Don't know what you believe.
As for today, I have said several times that Stanford has been THE leader in new technologies since 1970.
[quote]
I seem to remember how you claimed in the past that GPS was all Stanford. What happened?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I didn't say GPS was all Stanford. You are right that I only mentioned Stanford when talking about GPS, partially due to the fact that MIT has contributed little to GPS since 1970, while Stanford has been the driving force of GPS since 1970. </p>
<p>Let's play fair here. In the past, you claimed MIT's contribution to radar without never mentioning Stanford's critical role in inventions of klystron and 'over the horizon' radar. Made it like radar is all the way MIT. And this is Pretty much like when you talked about MIT's contribution to MATLAB, GENETECH, and ALTAVISTA without mentioning that Stanford people are inventors or co-inventors of these technologies.
[quote]
And let me ask you - whose ranked higher in the current USNews for engineering? You don't want to challenge that, right?
[/quote]
Yes, MIT has been ranked as #1 engineering school by US NEWS for years. But Stanford has been the leader in foundamental technology advancement since 1970, especially in information technology.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So that means the 1997 bussiness week survey from IT professionals does not mean anything to you. Right? Don't know what you believe.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm saying it's old. Just like the NRC ranking is old. Things change. I'm sure I could dig up an old ranking that shows MIT ranked above Stanford too, but would that prove anything to you? Didn't think so. </p>
<p>
[quote]
As for today, I have said several times that Stanford has been THE leader in new technologies since 1970.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Which is still an unclear point to me. Nobody disputes that Stanford has produced many technologies. The question is, whether they are truly THE leader. That remains unproven. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I didn't say GPS was all Stanford. You are right that I only mentioned Stanford when talking about GPS, partially due to the fact that MIT has contributed little to GPS since 1970, while Stanford has been the driving force of GPS since 1970. </p>
<p>Let's play fair here. In the past, you claimed MIT's contribution to radar without never mentioning Stanford's critical role in inventions of klystron and 'over the horizon' radar. Made it like radar is all the way MIT. And this is Pretty much like when you talked about MIT's contribution to MATLAB, GENETECH, and ALTAVISTA without mentioning that Stanford people are inventors or co-inventors of these technologies.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, what's wrong with this picture? So you choose not to mention MIT's contributions to anything, and then you say that you want others to play fair? You started it, my friend. I'm just following the rules that you set forth - if you feel so free to neglect MIT's contributions, then I should feel free to neglect Stanford's contributions. What's fair is fair. You can't just keep changing the rules to suit your own purposes. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes, MIT has been ranked as #1 engineering school by US NEWS for years. But Stanford has been the leader in foundamental technology advancement since 1970, especially in information technology.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, wasn't most of the minicomputer revolution (i.e. DEC, Prime, Apollo etc.) of the 1970's and 1980's centered around Highway 128? Heck, I believe DEC was the 2nd largest computer company in the world (after IBM) until the late 1980's. Wasn't the Free Software Foundation founded by MIT people?</p>
<p>Seriously guys, why does it matter. If you don't like MIT, you don't have to go. If you do, I encourage you to explore. Can we just leave it at that?</p>
<p>I dunno what the point of the this debate is...all 12 pages of it...besides making a public embarrassment of both aspects of the argument. If you guys want to argue, do so in private. This "he said, she said" stuff is not going to sway/matter to the vast majority of the people out here. I mean seriously, if rankings ruled the world, a lot more countries would be at war.</p>
<p>Just let people decide for themselves which school they like (is) better.</p>
<p>Most people would go to MIT for undergrad, and then switch to Stanford for grad school. In terms of developing your professional career, the number of connections that open up for you in Silicon Valley, if you have the Stanford name on your resume, is something that MIT just can’t compete with. </p>
<p>Having worked in Silicon Valley for most of my career, I can tell you honestly that connections are everything in this town. If you want to get in on the next hot startup, you have to know the people who founded/funded the last round of hot startups. </p>
<p>Stanford’s DNA is ingrained in nearly all of the successful companies in the Valley. </p>
<p>The fact that so many MIT posters are so defensive on this thread should really tell people all they really need to know. </p>
<p>Stanford is very good at creating innovative technologies, and then productizing them. This is underlined by the fact that Stanford has one of the top two MBA programs in the country - along with Harvard. To me how people vote with their feet (and pocket books) is the most convincing argument of all.</p>