<p>I know they are both quite highly regarded. I do like building things hands on etc. which is why MIT is appealing, but I also like good weather skateboarding chillaxin and all that other cali stuff (hey i grew up here!) i'm a bit afraid of MIT's "pressure cooker" atmosphere while Stanford seems a lot more easy going. But then also MIT has a much older campus, close to a cool city ( Boston and the whole college area harvard, Boston U etc. etc..)
so where should i go, and what are the differences in teaching , research , how much hands on stuff etc.
It is really equal right now I have no idea which one I want to choose, i'm going to CPW for both of the to get a better feel. but mainly I want to know about the programs and oppurtunities not people/social aspects because those I want to judge for myself AT the campuses.</p>
<p>go for Stanford! :)</p>
<p>MIT has CSAIL (MIT CompSci and AI Labs), although I believe Stanford has SAIL (Stanford AI Labs). They are both extremely good I hear, and perhaps if you have more specific interests in computer science you should look into those, because both depts aren't equally as good in different subfields of CS.</p>
<p>See also: the media lab</p>
<p>Any difference between the two computer science programs is going to be trivial compared to the other differences between the schools. Stanford has lots of humanities majors who will stare at you blankly when you say "differential equation"; MIT has very few humanities majors and even they are good with differential equations. Stanford is on quarters, so you get to take more different classes but also have to take more exams. MIT has an exacting core curriculum, while Stanford doesn't. Athletics are a much bigger deal at Stanford. MIT is cold; Stanford is warm.</p>
<p>How you react to those things will have an enormous impact on your quality of life for the next four years. Don't worry about the trivial differences between particular departments, especially since - like most students - you will probably wind up changing majors at least once.</p>
<p>I'll agree with everything above except "MIT is cold." MIT is cold in the winter. In the summer, it may be warmer on average than Palo Alto.</p>
<p>There are quite a few Cali kids at MIT, so you can build your own chillaxing community here if you wish.</p>
<p>visit both schools and see how you fit in</p>
<p>Stanford worked as a defense lawyer at one point.</p>
<p>Vote, I mean, go to, MIT.</p>
<p>Computer science at Stanford is no picnic, contrary to Salik's implication. It's probably the most work-intensive, demanding major at the entire university, bar none. </p>
<p>The workload for a Stanford CS major is at least equatable to the workload for an MIT CS major, if not greater.</p>
<p>MIT might have more of a "pressure-cooker environment" (whatever that means) for other majors, but not for CS. </p>
<p>And believe me, one can "chillax" at any college. In fact, one can "chillax" a million times better if they go to Arizona State, community college, or best of all, no school at all.</p>
<p>good point gracie, but that is the overal consensus i get from most people on CC that MIT is more "nerdy work intensive " and stanford is all "laid back" i'm sure these are probably gross generalizations and exaggerations... this thread is semi-pointless : both have equally reputable programs, i'll have to visit both and see... :)</p>
<p><em>cough</em></p>
<p>Sun, Hewlett-Packard, Cisco, Yahoo, Google</p>
<p>...all of which heavily hire MIT grads, too.</p>
<p>I don't think there's going to be a huge difference between the two schools in terms of job prospects or course material. You really will just have to visit both schools and try to get past the stereotypes.</p>
<p>Salik:</p>
<p>Those generalizations are correct.... in general. But for computer science majors, I would probably disagree. Stanford CS majors don't have nearly as much opportunity to be laid-back. </p>
<p>(I'm saying this based on feedback from my friends who are CS majors at Stanford. I haven't taken any CS courses there myself, so the information is a little second hand)</p>
<p>ksanders:</p>
<p>Graduating with a PhD from Stanford will not give you an advantage over a PhD from MIT, Princeton, Caltech, or any other good school in getting a job for one of those companies. In fact, one's university isn't nearly as important in the hiring process as your actual ability.</p>
<p>My father actually hires for one of the companies you listed above. A few weeks ago, he rejected two Stanford PhDs, both of who were "dumb as rocks and had forgetten how to think" according to him.</p>
<p>He ended up hiring a PhD from the University of Minnesota, who was, according to him, "a very intelligent and talented individual".</p>
<p>Ive heard that the reason why companies like Sun, Hewlett-Packard, Cisco, Yahoo, and Google have formed around Stanford is because if you decide you want to profit from research you did at Stanford, you dont have to give them any of your earnings. Does MIT have this policy too?</p>
<p>I very much doubt that's true. Most universities have pretty stringent policies about profiting from research -- they'll get their finger in the pie or else. (For example, UCSF has a gorgeous new research facility courtesy of Genentech, because some researcher defected from UCSF and went to Genentech with all of his previously-UCSF-funded knowledge, and UCSF sued and won.)</p>
<p>I think the reason there are a lot of biotech and computer companies in Cambridge/Boston and SF is just out of convenience.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Computer science at Stanford is no picnic, contrary to Salik's implication. It's probably the most work-intensive, demanding major at the entire university, bar none. </p>
<p>The workload for a Stanford CS major is at least equatable to the workload for an MIT CS major, if not greater.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think the major difference is that if you go to Stanford and find out that technical classes are just too hard or you're lazy and you just don't want to do the work or whatever, you can just switch to some other major and never have to take another technical class in your life. However, at MIT, everybody has to do the GIR's. Even the MIT humanities majors have to do the GIR's. </p>
<p>Furthermore, the truth is, you don't need a computer science degree, or even a technical degree of any kind, in order to succeed in the computer industry. Carly Fiorina studied history at Stanford (and later got her master's at the MIT Sloan School) and then eventually become CEO of HP (for which she was later fired, but got a very nice 8-figure severance package). </p>
<p>
[quote]
Sun, Hewlett-Packard, Cisco, Yahoo, Google
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Interestingly enough, Sun was not founded by a single Stanford computer science or engineering graduate. The 4 Sun founders are Scott McNealy, Vinod Khosla, Andy Bechtolscheim, and Bill Joy. 2 of them are Stanford graduates (McNealy and Khosla) - but with MBA's from Stanford, not technical degrees. Bechtolscheim and Khosla have engineering degrees from Carnegie Mellon. Bill Joy has engineering degrees from Michigan and Berkeley. McNealy did his undergrad in economics at Harvard. </p>
<p>As far as HP is concerned, didn't William Hewlett go to MIT (as well as Stanford)? </p>
<p>Besides, MIT has a long list of high-profile companies that were founded by graduates as well. Qualcomm, Raytheon, Intel (Noyce came from MIT, none of the founders of Intel came from Stanford). </p>
<p>
[quote]
ve heard that the reason why companies like Sun, Hewlett-Packard, Cisco, Yahoo, and Google have formed around Stanford is because if you decide you want to profit from research you did at Stanford, you dont have to give them any of your earnings. Does MIT have this policy too?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is completely false. Every university, including Stanford, holds rights to anything you invent while you were a student there. For example, Cisco paid off Stanford with a large dollop of stock for free and clear rights to the router patents. Google did the same with Stanford - in fact, for a long time, Stanford was one of the Google's largest shareholders (although I think Stanford eventually sold their stock). </p>
<p>"The Google and Yahoo! stories illustrate the application of Stanford's Patent and Copyright Policies to real-life examples. Jerry Yang and David Filo disclosed their software to Stanford, requesting that Stanford confirm that Stanford did not have an ownership interest in the technology. Yang and Filo were Ph.D. students at Stanford and had used Stanford computers (which is usually considered to be incidental use) to develop the software; their professors confirmed that their invention was not related to their university responsibilities as students. Based on this information, Stanford did not claim ownership to what became the Yahoo! search engine.</p>
<p>In contrast, Sergey Brin and Larry Page had worked on a search engine for many years. Because the students had been paid by a government contract in the course of their research to satisfy their Ph.D. degree requirements, under both Stanford's Patent and Copyright policies Stanford had ownership to the software, that is, the written code. In addition, Stanford filed a patent on the method of ranking Web pages in order to improve searches. After trying to find the best licensee, Stanford determined that these inventors were in the best position to develop the invention effectively, and so Stanford licensed the technology to their company, Google."</p>
<p><a href="http://www.cra.org/CRN/articles/ku.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.cra.org/CRN/articles/ku.html</a></p>
<p>"Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tiger Woods and Google's thirtysomething founders aren't the only investors likely to make big bucks when Google sells shares to the public this year.
Stanford University, where Google began, could sock away $250 million from stock it owns in the online search engine giant. That could be a record for a university profiting from a campus start-up.</p>
<p>Stanford has long benefited from its role as the tech industry's crucible. The Silicon Valley university has helped spawn 1,200 tech and other start-ups, including Hewlett-Packard, Yahoo and eBay. It earned $50.2 million in royalties from technology licensed to Google and other companies in 2002 ...</p>
<p>...The school tried to license it to other companies for two years before Brin and Page licensed it for their Google start-up in 1998. Under that deal, Google pays Stanford annual license fees in stock and cash. The cash is split in three equal shares between the school's computer-science department, the engineering school and Brin and Page.</p>
<p>Stanford also received Google stock in the deal. The school won't say how much. Google's recent IPO filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission indicates Stanford's stake is less than 5%.</p>
<p>Craig Zolan, CEO of tech-transfer firm Techcense, estimates the university's ownership started at 5%, based on historic norms. The stake may have been diluted to 1% after investors like Schwarzenegger piled in through venture-capital funds that plowed $40 million into Google in 1999 and 2000.</p>
<p>Estimates of Google's post-IPO market value vary widely. But based on one figure often cited, $25 billion, the value of Stanford's stake could soar to $250 million. "</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think the reason there are a lot of biotech and computer companies in Cambridge/Boston and SF is just out of convenience.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, there is a lot of extensive literature in the business community that talks about how and why hot technology sectors develop around various parts of the world, and in general, why is it that certain regions of the country thrive economically and others don't (and by extension why do certain countries do better than other countries economically). A lot of heavyweight academics in the business schools, econ departments, political science departments, as well as (of course) the engineering and science departments have weighed on. For example, lots of state politicians have looked to replicate their own high-tech cluster ala Silicon Valley or Boston's Highway 128 (the so-called "Technology Highway"), which is why you got terms like "Silicon Forest" (in Oregon), "Silicon Desert" (in Arizona), "Silicon Alley" (in Manhattan), Silicon this, Silicon that. Moreover, this has become a topic of intense interest as it has to do with world economics. A lot of foreign countries have attempted to boost their own technology sector by copying the American model. This is especially true in Taiwan which probably has the closest equivalent to the US tech model with its emphasis on entrepreneurship, but has also been seen in Singapore, Ireland, and Hong Kong. Japan and Korea have also attempted to copy the US tech economic model, but with far less emphasis on individual entrepeneurship, but rather with a focus on government-directed financing of large tech companies like Samsung and Sony. </p>
<p>However, I agree with molliebatmit that it really all comes down to convenience. But that is THE crucial component that explains why almost every industry-sector economy tends to develop around a geographic region. For example, the banking and finance industry in the US is largely concentrated in New York City, and specifically downtown Manhattan. Worldwide, the 2 major non-US banking sites are London and Tokyo. The US auto industry has historically been concentrated around Detroit, and only now is a shift to the South happening, mostly because GM and Ford are dying. Much of the American (and the world) entertainment industry is concentrated around Los Angeles, as LA is strong in not only movies, but also music and TV production. The only subsector of the entertainment industry that LA does not dominate is the stage, which is still dominated by Broadway. Much of the world fashion industry is still largely concentrated in Europe, especially Paris and Northern Italy. </p>
<p>It all has to do with what economists call 'externalities' which encompasses convenience. As one successful movie studio was founded in Hollywood in the early 1900's, that created demand for companies that could service the studio - small companies that specialized in costume design, makeup, film processing, lighting, and so forth. It also encouraged aspiring actors, screenwriters, and directors to move to LA to work at that studio. All of that available "service infrastructure" meant that it was easier for a 2nd movie studio to be founded in LA, and then a 3rd, and so forth and so on. A new studio could be founded in LA and have immediate access to a large pool of aspiring actors, writers, and directors, as well as all of those specialty service companies like the costume companies and so forth. That certainly makes it a lot easier than trying to found a new studio in some place where there is no infrastructure and no readily available skilled employees. The reason why the auto industry has been so strong in Detroit is not only because the Big 3 plants are there, but so are all of the auto parts suppliers as well as a developed highly developed physical transportation infrastructure (especially rail lines) with which to ship cars not to mention an available workforce of trained technicians, engineers, and managers. While the US auto industry has been moving to the South, it has been a slow process chiefly because any auto company that wants to manufacture in a Southern city has had to bring along a lot of infrastructure with it. For example, before Nissan could build its huge plant in Smyrna, Tennessee (near Nashville), it had to convince a lot of its suppliers to set up shop there. </p>
<p>So the point is, when you're talking about setting up a new biotech or new computer company, you tend to want to go to where the infrastructure is. Boston and the Bay Area have well-develope technology infrastructures, meaning that the VC firms are there, the law firms that specialize in entrepreneurial intellectual property are there, the 'service' firms are there (i.e. companies that supply lab equipment for biotech firms, companies that supply reference chip designs for computer companies, companies that specialize in advertising and marketing for new biotechs/computer companies, tech strategy consulting firms who can provide you with consulting insights, etc.), as well as, most importantly of all, for tech companies, a strong pool of potential employees is there. The point is, it's far far easier to set up business in a place where everything you need is nearby.</p>
<p>I would say, if you want to major in Computer Science, come to Stanford. But if you want to major in Computer Engineering, go to MIT.</p>
<p>MIT doesn't have a pure CS major. It only offers EECS, which is partly or largely hardware-based, which is good for Computer Engineering majors, but might not be a good fit for CS majors. </p>
<p>Stanford has everything: Computer Science, Computer Systems Engineering, Electrical Engineering (with Software or Hardware concentration). Although I'm an EE major, I was truly amazed by CS classes I took here. Professors are awesome and the course is strongly organized. </p>
<p>Although it is true that you cannot discuss about programming with other Stanford non-techy students, you have a pretty good chance to make friends with other CS students from UC Berkeley. (I assume you already know that Berkeley CS is pretty much comparable to MIT.)</p>
<p>Decide carefully, based on your own strength. MIT and Stanford are totally different places.</p>
<p>NOmak is incorrect. MIT's course 18C, Mathematics with Computer Science, is the pure Computer Science major at MIT. NOmak is correct, however, that the schools are very different places. Decide based on more than just your own strengths: decide based on where you'll feel challenged and where you feel most energized and ready to spend your next four years.</p>
<p>And for that matter, I don't see how the name of the major would impact anyone's decision whether to choose MIT or Stanford. Newsflash: it's what you learn in college, not the name on your degree, that matters.</p>
<p>Even if the 18C option weren't available, MIT students still have the opportunity to take plenty of amazing CS classes from leaders in the field. It just so happens that if you're 6-3 (the track in EECS that is CSE) you also take some classes in hardware.</p>