<p>Stanford is ranked No.2 for engineering by the US NEWS, but is stanford really strong in engineering?</p>
<p>I'm not an Engineering major, but the department seems to have a pretty strong reputation on campus. It is also reputed to be one of the least flexible majors in terms of classes you have to take, but maybe that's true for engineering at most top schools.</p>
<p>Maybe someone else with more personal experience with Engineering can give you some better info...</p>
<p>In terms of technlogy, no other school in the world has contributed more than Stanford University, especially in the last 30 years. The world's technology locomotive is Silicon Valley. The well spring of innovation is Stanford. I don't think any other school can match against Stanford's following deeds.</p>
<p>1) 18 Turing prizes, more than 1/3 of the prizes awarded.
The number of Stanford's ties to Turing prize, the 'Nobel' prize in computing, is #1 in the world. No other school is even close, perhaps except Berkeley.</p>
<p>2) Stanford faculty and students have created some of the most famous and most successful companies, such as
HP,
SUN,
CISCO,
SILICON GRAPHICS,
YAHOO,
GOOGLE,
NETSCAPE.</p>
<p>Again, no other school is even close. </p>
<p>3) Stanford faculty and graduates have invented or at least played the leading role in lots of new technologies in the last 30 years, more than any other university in the world:
internet (Former Stanford professor Vinton Cerf is widely refered as 'the father of internet') ,
wireless router (invented by Stanford researcher Bill Yeager),
DSL broad band internet connection (Invented by Stanford professor John Cioffi),
TEX (invented by the great Don Knuth, a long time faculty member, who laid the foundation of computer science),
Google search engine (invented by Stanford Ph.D students Page and Brin),
artificial inelligence (Stanford Professor John MacCarthy coined this word)
expert system (Stanford professor Edward Feigenbaum is called the father of expert system),
1st robot car (Stanford Cart),
1st robot arm (Stanford arm),
digital music sytheses (invented by Stanford professor John Chowning, licensed by YAMAHA)
GPS (Global positioning system, Bradford Parkinson),
microprocessor (invented by Stanford ph.d Ted Hoff),
UNIX workstation (invented by a Stanford Ph.d student Andy Bechtolshem),
genetic engineering,
micro array,
MATLAB (invented by Stanford graduates)
RISC (Stanford president John Hennessy).
Again, I believe no other school is even close.</p>
<p>In 1995 NATIONAL REASEARCH COUNCIL Ph.D programs ranking, Stanford was ranked #1 in computer science, electrical engineering, and mechanical engineering. Although most people still believe MIT is the premier engineering school in the world, it is Stanford that has been contributed most in changing the world and making it better, not MIT.</p>
<p>By the way, the current president of Caltech is a Stanford Ph.d. The dean of MIT engineering school is also a Stanford Ph.d.</p>
<p>lol. I love Stanford.</p>
<p>Omg datalook, you sure do your research well.</p>
<p>yeah its great and all but the math is more proof/theory centered. MIT has a better math program. But dont get me wrong Stanford is awesome....</p>
<p>oh yeah i heard that MIT math >Stan math from a local alumni who switched to MIT from Stanford</p>
<p>I am under the impression that Stanford engineering is the best in the nation.</p>
<p>In pure math, MIT might be a little stronger than Stanford. But in applied math, such as computational math and statistics, Stanford is a little better.</p>
<p>In pure math, Princeton, Harvard, and Berkeley might be the top 3, followed by MIT and Stanford.</p>
<p>Stanford has the #1 statistics department in the world.</p>
<p>Is this post a joke? Do you doubt the ratings? Or wonder if #2 isn't as good as #1? </p>
<p>Honestly, as an undergraduate you are very unlikely to know the difference between #1 and #5, provided that the school has the classes/resources you want and need. There are so many other things that will actually matter much, much more to your undergraduate experience like if housing is guaranteed all four years or what the weather is like or how well the dining halls take into account your feedback about the food, if you can request different stuff in the dining halls, etc. Any of the top schools in math will have the courses you want and profs who are brilliant in a wide array of fields in math and you'll probably use mostly the same books anyway... and in the end most of your learning will take place when you read the book and do the problems on your own. </p>
<p>Really, the stuff many of you worry about just doesn't matter.</p>
<p>Take a look at the membership in USA National Academy of Science for each school ranked within top 5 according to US NEWS graduate school ranking. I think the NAS membership reflects the strength of the faculty of each department.</p>
<ul>
<li>Pure math</li>
</ul>
<p>Princeton (15 NAS members in math)
Harvard (8)
Berkeley (8)
MIT (7)
Stanford (6 NAS members in math)</p>
<ul>
<li>applied math (statistics included)</li>
</ul>
<p>Stanford (9 NAS members in applied math)
Berkeley (7)
MIT (2)
Harvard (1)
Prineton (1 member in applied math)</p>
<p>see <a href="http://www.nas.edu%5B/url%5D">www.nas.edu</a></p>
<p>Before this thread turns into another rankings war, can anybody tell me how the chemical engineering program is? </p>
<p>The ChemE website isn't very informative. I talked to an administrator and she kinda gave the impression that, while rigorous, there aren't many options to take classes outside the major. For example, I'm also interested in biochemical engineering and bioengineering, will I have much flexibility to take classes in those areas as well?</p>
<p>O.O Im convinced</p>
<p>OK, I'm going to play devil's advocate here. </p>
<p>Almost all of the people datalook brought up in his post either went to Stanford for grad school or were professors at Stanford. Page and Brin both went to relatively mediocre undergrad schools-Brin to University of Maryland & Page to UMich. The quality of undergraduate engineering education is probably the same at all the top 10 schools and the experience is probably going to be similar. We shouldn't be worried too much about undergrad. In 10 years, all of this is probably going to seem trivial. </p>
<p>But don't get me wrong-I would love to be at Stanford for undergrad, which is why I applied SCEA. I'm just trying to prepare myself mentally for that thin envelope that's in the mail.</p>
<p>Yeah, I think I have to play devil's advocate here also.</p>
<p>Let's take a look at this list here:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Stanford faculty and students have created some of the most famous and most successful companies, such as</p>
<p>HP,
SUN,
CISCO,
SILICON GRAPHICS,
YAHOO,
GOOGLE,
NETSCAPE.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>William Hewlett of HP holds degrees from both MIT and Stanford.</p>
<p>As far as Sun Microsystems, Silicon Graphics, and Netscape, I wouldn't exactly call them particularly good examples, because right now, they are either a world of hurt, or in the case of Netscape, had already died because it lost the browser wars to Microsoft. Silicon Graphics was under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection until a month ago. Sun, frankly, is not a particularly strong company. It's sad because I like Sun, and I recognize that Sun has contributed many important advances, but they are not a financially successful company right now. Think about it. It's been more than 3 years since Sun has actually been profitable. That's a long time for any company to not make profits. I hope Sun can turn it around, but I don't know it they will. </p>
<p>Netscape had a chance to usurp Microsoft but obviously failed spectacularly. The reasons are myriad - Netscape was stupid, Microsoft broke the law, etc., but at the end of the day, now, Netscape is not particularly relevant. The Netscape browser now has less than 1% market share. True, Netscape did form Mozilla, and through that (especially through Firefox), Netscape's legacy will live on. But Netscape as an ongoing business entity is clearly dead. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Although most people still believe MIT is the premier engineering school in the world, it is Stanford that has been contributed most in changing the world and making it better, not MIT.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't know, I think that's a pretty inflammatory statement when you go around saying that you're better than other schools. After all, here is a partial list of the companies that MIT grads have founded:</p>
<p>Intel (stil by far the largest-revenue company in Silicon Valley, and the prototypical SILICON Valley company. It's not called "Computer" Valley or "Internet" Valley, it's called SILICON Valley, and Intel is far and away the biggest silicon company)
DEC (now part of HP. If you want to count Netscape, even though it is a dead company, then I don't see what's wrong with counting DEC).
Qualcomm (inventor of CDMA cellphone technology)
3Com (developed Ethernet)
Genentech
Texas Instruments
McDonnell Douglas
Raytheon
Rockwell Collins and Rockwell Automation
ETrade
EG&G (big defense contractor)
Campbell Soup
Gillette
Koch Industries (largest private company in the world)
Analog Devices
Mathsoft (maker of Mathcad)
Mathworks (maker of Matlab)</p>
<p>The issue with MIT is that the companies MIT grads tend to found are manufacturers of 'intermediate' goods, as opposed to consumer goods, meaning that the companies tend to sell to specialized markets and/or other companies than to regular consumers, which is why consumers rarely hear about them. After all, no regular person needs to buy a radar system from Raytheon. No customer ever buys anything from Qualcomm directly. What they buy is a cellphone that is using technology that was licensed from Qualcomm. </p>
<p>Hence, I would agree that regular consumers probably don't know many of the companies that MIT grads have founded. But that doesn't make them unimportant to the greater economy.</p>
<p>Look, let's just say that both schools are perfectly good engineering schools. I don't think there is any need to try to say that one is better than the other. Both schools have done impressive things.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Take a look at the membership in USA National Academy of Science for each school ranked within top 5 according to US NEWS graduate school ranking. I think the NAS membership reflects the strength of the faculty of each department.</p>
<ul>
<li>Pure math</li>
</ul>
<p>Princeton (15 NAS members in math)
Harvard (8)
Berkeley (8)
MIT (7)
Stanford (6 NAS members in math)</p>
<ul>
<li>applied math (statistics included)</li>
</ul>
<p>Stanford (9 NAS members in applied math)
Berkeley (7)
MIT (2)
Harvard (1)
Prineton (1 member in applied math)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, if you want to go down that road, then you might as well look at the numbers of the National Academy of Engineering to see who has more profs:</p>
<p>Stanford - 86
MIT - 107</p>
<p>Now, does that "prove" that MIT is better than Stanford in engineering? No, I didn't say that. I am just saying that if you want to use memberships in the National Academy as your proxy, then you have to be willing to live with the consequences. You can't just say that "Oh, Stanford has more National Academy members in math, so it must be better in math, but it doesn't mean anything if Stanford has fewer National Academy members in engineering." You can't just invoke particular judgment criteria when it suits you, but then ignore them when they don't suit you.</p>
<p>Quate:</p>
<hr>
<p>Intel (stil by far the largest-revenue company in Silicon Valley, and the prototypical SILICON Valley company. It's not called "Computer" Valley or "Internet" Valley, it's called SILICON Valley, and Intel is far and away the biggest silicon company)
DEC (now part of HP. If you want to count Netscape, even though it is a dead company, then I don't see what's wrong with counting DEC).
Qualcomm (inventor of CDMA cellphone technology)
3Com (developed Ethernet)
Genentech
Texas Instruments
McDonnell Douglas
Raytheon
Rockwell Collins and Rockwell Automation
ETrade
EG&G (big defense contractor)
Campbell Soup
Gillette
Koch Industries (largest private company in the world)
Analog Devices
Mathsoft (maker of Mathcad)
Mathworks (maker of Matlab)</p>
<hr>
<p>Some of these companies have strong ties to other universities, perhaps even more so than MIT.</p>
<p>Example:
1) Genetech. It is more of a UCSF company. Both founders, Swanson and Boyer, are Ph.ds from UCSF. Boyer is a UCSF professor. Professor Boyer and Stanford professor Cohen Stanley are considered the co-fathers of genetic engineering. Genetech's current chief research officer is a former Stanford professor.</p>
<p>2)Mathworks (maker of MATLAB). It is more of a Stanford Company. Both founders, Moler and Little, went to Stanford for graduate school. Moler taught at Stanford as well.</p>
<p>3)Intel. It may be more of a Berkeley company. 2 of the 3 founders went to Berleley for graduate school. Stanford can claim some credit of it too. One founder Mr. Grove (current CEO) teaches at Stanford Bussiness school as a lecturer. The current Charman of Intel is a Stanford Ph.d. A Stanford Ph.D Ted Hoff invented microprocessor at Intel, a milestone in computing history. Without microprocessor, our computer would have been as big as a big house.</p>
<p>4) 3COM. Stanford can claim some credit of it too. The 2 co-inventors of ethernet also have ties to Stanford. One taught at Stanford, the other went to Stanford for graduate school.</p>
<p>My impression: MIT's companies are generally less famous than Stanford's. Stanford graduates have founded more than 2000 companies. I don't think I should list all of them here. Just name a few more famous ones here: EBAY, Knight, Capital One, and Charles Schwab.</p>
<p>Don't get me wrong. MIT is great. It still has most faculty members elected in the National Academy of Engineering. It is older and bigger than Stanford in engineering. It has done lots of great things in technology. Stanford is great too. And Finally, I still believe that in the last 30 years, Stanford has been the leading force in technology inventions, more so than any other universities in the world.</p>
<p>Honestly whether you choose to go to MIT or Stanford or any other top school shouldn't be based on how many people won turing prizes or other marks of honor. That stuff isn't really relevent because you will be an UNDERGRAD... you don't know anything yet. Most likely you won't be doing research with nobel laureates or founding companies (yet) so most of that stuff isn't at all that important. Like marlgirl pointed out... the feel of the campus is probably more important than how many nobel prizes were won. </p>
<p>Also just because google was founded at Stanford or Raytheon at MIT does not reflect that much upon the school. Both schools attract lots of amazing students, it is more MIT or Stanfords luck that they happened to get those particularily innovative students who went on to make millions and give the school a better name. Just because you go to a school where more fortune 500 companies were formed doesn't necessarily make you more likely to found one.</p>
<p>BTW. I heard google was a FAILED Phd thesis. at Stanford.</p>
<p>quate: "BTW. I heard google was a FAILED Phd thesis. at Stanford".</p>
<p>No. The google guys dropped out from their ph.d program from Stanford. They never finished their dissertation. Similarly, the 2 YAHOO founders Filo and Yang, and the guy who invented unix workstation, Andy Bechtolsheim, all dropped out from their ph.d program at Stanford. All of these people gave up their ph.d degrees for making big money.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Example:
1) Genetech. It is more of a UCSF company. Both founders, Swanson and Boyer, are Ph.ds from UCSF. Boyer is a UCSF professor. Professor Boyer and Stanford professor Cohen Stanley are considered the co-fathers of genetic engineering. Genetech's current chief research officer is a former Stanford professor.</p>
<p>2)Mathworks (maker of MATLAB). It is more of a Stanford Company. Both founders, Moler and Little, went to Stanford for graduate school. Moler taught at Stanford as well.</p>
<p>3)Intel. It may be more of a Berkeley company. 2 of the 3 founders went to Berleley for graduate school. Stanford can claim some credit of it too. One founder Mr. Grove (current CEO) teaches at Stanford Bussiness school as a lecturer. The current Charman of Intel is a Stanford Ph.d. A Stanford Ph.D Ted Hoff invented microprocessor at Intel, a milestone in computing history. Without microprocessor, our computer would have been as big as a big house.</p>
<p>4) 3COM. Stanford can claim some credit of it too. The 2 co-inventors of ethernet also have ties to Stanford. One taught at Stanford, the other went to Stanford for graduate school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Look, nobody is saying that those companies I mentioned don't have ties to other schools. </p>
<p>But if this is the road you want to go on, then I could point out ties that your 'Stanford' companies have to MIT. For example, like I said, the 'H' in HP is an MIT graduate, in addition to also being a Stanford graduate. Greg Papadopolous, the CTO and head of R&D at Sun Microsystems, holds a PhD from MIT and was a former associate prof there. Plenty of the other 'Stanford' companies have a heavy MIT presence. </p>
<p>
[quote]
3)Intel. It may be more of a Berkeley company. 2 of the 3 founders went to Berleley for graduate school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, actually, no. Intel has only TWO founders, strictly speaking. Only Noyce and Moore. Andy Grove was not really a founder. Grove was Intel's 4th employee, but not one of the founders. </p>
<p>
[quote]
My impression: MIT's companies are generally less famous than Stanford's. Stanford graduates have founded more than 2000 companies. I don't think I should list all of them here. Just name a few more famous ones here: EBAY, Knight, Capital One, and Charles Schwab.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't dispute that MIT's companies are less famous, but I doubt that that means much, because, like I said, MIT grads tend to found companies that are focused on intermediate producer goods, as opposed to consumer goods. For example, MIT grads have founded a whole slew of defense contractors and aerospace firms - a legacy of MIT's long-standing ties with the Pentagon, the SAGE project, the Radiation Lab, and the Instrumentation Lab, which were deep at the forefront of the US efforts to win WW2 and the Cold War. Regular consumers (I hope) don't buy products from defense contractors, so regular people have no reason to know about these companies. How many people can actually name a single product that Raytheon makes? Or EG&G? Or McDonnell Douglas (now part of the defense arm of Boeing)? But I would hardly say that not having exposure to end-consumers is necessarily a bad thing. Plenty of companies are highly successful in selling products that few end-consumers have ever heard of, simply because they don't cater to the end-consumer market. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And Finally, I still believe that in the last 30 years, Stanford has been the leading force in technology inventions, more so than any other universities in the world.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, but in the tech industry, things tend to change very quickly. 30 years ago, the cradle of US innovation was still Route 128, the 'Technology Highway', around Boston. This was the age of the 'mini-computer' maker, a market that was absolutely dominated by MIT-founded companies such as DEC, Prime, and Apollo. These were the 'golden companies' of the tech industry of the 1970's. I am sure that in 30 years, many of the Silicon Valley golden companies will be dead. For example, right now, it looks like Sun Microsystems is on death's door, not having turned a profit in 3 years and ripe for the picking from a private equity firm. That's just the nature of the tech industry - companies rise and fall quickly, and today's kings can become tomorrow's paupers. 30 years in the future, the center of innovation may no longer be Silicon Valley. Who knows? </p>
<p>The point is, you shouldn't base too much of your choice for college on the success of the past. You can always move to where the action is. </p>
<p>Again, I also see little value to be gained in declaring that one school is clearly 'the best' in engineering. Both MIT and Stanford have their strengths and weaknesses. I think it's enough to say that both schools are strong engineering schools. </p>
<p>
[quote]
BTW. I heard google was a FAILED Phd thesis. at Stanford.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You heard wrong. Like datalook said, they never even wrote their thesis. They just dropped out. Nor do I find this particularly unusual. Lots of PhD students from many schools drop out to pursue other ventures.</p>