<p>
[quote]
Stanford is in Palo Alto, which is a very suburban part of the Bay area. There are few other college students with whom to interact, and it's difficult to get into the surrounding area unless you have the luxury of keeping a car on campus.
[/quote]
The main part of this, stanford being in the 'burbs, is the key to understanding the difference in settings. MIT is at the door of a city, stanford is set in sprawling suburbia. A car at stanford is useful for getting around, something I think is universally true in suburbs.</p>
<p>I live in snowy Michigan, and have lived here for many snowy, snowy years. I'm originally from unsnowy India... needless to say, I hate- nay, despise- the snow. If by some miracle I get into both unsnowy Stanford and snowy MIT, I'm going to Stanford because it's in unsnowy California (with palm trees!).</p>
<p>Did I mention that Stanford doesn't get much snow?</p>
<p>The open information culture and the immense intellectual energy that is so prevalent and palpable at MIT is what appealed to me more than any other school on my list. The snow did not.</p>
<p>I do not believe that the culture at Stanford is as good a fit for me as the culture at MIT, but the climate at Stanford is a far better fit for me than the climate at MIT.</p>
<p>And comeon, the snow isn't that bad in Palo Alto. I'm used to the snow (shorts and tshirts are standard attire for me during the winter here in Michigan) and I would probably be in a bathing suit in Stanford's so-called "snow". ;)</p>
<p>If you want to be around a non-well-rounded group of people, you can certainly find those at MIT.</p>
<p>However, you can find plenty of extremely well-rounded students at MIT, no matter what over-generalists like to say with no evidence to back them up. Did you know that we have 41 NCAA-recognized varsity sports teams (not to mention 800 club sport athletes and about 670 intramural athletic teams)? We have a wide variety of performing arts groups, both curricular and extracurricular. </p>
<p>Socially, we have twelve awesome dormitories, all with very different cultures, and you get to pick which one you live in. If dorm life isn't your thing, there are something like 26 fraternities (I always forget exactly how many; 50% of male freshmen pledged this year) and 5 sororities (about 25% of women join sororities, which are primarily social). Do you really think all those frat boys are pocket-protector-wearing geeks?</p>
<p>Scholastically, we are required to take (and in many cases enjoy taking) about one-fourth of our classes in the humanities, arts, and social sciences. Say what you will about homogenous math/tech students, but we're certainly required to take more humanities classes than the average humanities major is required to take of science and engineering.</p>
<p>As for "diverse", MIT has one of the highest numbers of low-income Pell Grant recipients, one of the factors that led us to finish first in The</a> Washington Monthly college rankings. (Stanford finished fifth.) </p>
<p>Yeah, MIT was once a school for homogenous math and tech students. In the 60s. Now it's a school for smart people who want to do cool stuff.</p>
<p>Two absolutely great schools and places to go to college ... and they couldn't be more different ... visit them both and your preference will be obvious in no time at all.</p>
<p>well stanford has a more athletic culture in general; if you want big football games that the student body rallies around, they don't exist at MIT.
also, many MIT alums who graduated a long time ago probably don't feel as good about it, since only recently has it begun to focus on improving student life.</p>
<p>But if you actually want to participate in varsity sports rather than just sit on the bleachers and watch, MIT offers that opportunity where Stanford likely wouldn't. We're division III, so often anyone who wants to participate is able.</p>
<p>I've met many older alums (who are now professors at other schools) on my grad school interviews, and they all recall their MIT years fondly.</p>
<p>GracieLegend, it's one thing to disagree with somebody. It's quite another thing to engage in personal insults. Flinging around terms like "fool" and "moronic" are not illuminating to anybody.</p>
<p>I think that was the thing that tipped me to MIT. MIT has a culture of trying things out. The whole "Mind and Hands" ethos is very strong. Completely apart from the range of Intercollegiate sports, the intramural program is incredibly strong at MIT.</p>
<p>As a High School senior, I was concerned about MIT, as I would rank my primary academic interests at the time as Computing and Theatre, and I was sorely tempted to go to a "more balanced" school, and I am so, so glad that I didn't. While I got my MIT degree (in Applied math in the end), I participated regularly in on-campus theatre. I did several tours, including touring northern California my Junior year over IAP (16 stops in 3 weeks if memory serves including 3 shows at Stamford). I performed Shakespeare in a prison. I was encouraged to explore the limits of what I could do.</p>
<p>When I got out of MIT, I got my Actors Equity card and worked for a time in the professional theatre. Today, I'm an IT executive. The opportunities that I had at MIT, are not opportunities I would have had at most other schools. Not that other schools wouldn't have had touring productions, they possibly would have had more, but by and large, these would have been reserved for the theatre majors. Indeed, when I looked at some of the more "balanced" liberal arts schools, they did not have more well rounded students, they just had a wider variety of narrowly focused students.</p>
<p>Again, its all about the culture, the atmosphere, the MATCH of the school, but for me MIT was the optimal choice.</p>
Indeed, when I looked at some of the more "balanced" liberal arts schools, they did not have more well rounded students, they just had a wider variety of narrowly focused students.
[/quote]
I think this sentence deserves to be highlighted. How very insightful -- I never thought of it that way.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Not that other schools wouldn't have had touring productions, they possibly would have had more, but by and large, these would have been reserved for the theatre majors.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>and indeed that is EXACTLY the biggest common complaint of all my friends at Harvard. Is that all the activities/teams/ensembles are taken up by kids whose HOOK to get into harvard was talent in that particular area. So if you're not some national superstar at badminton, or theater, or voice, or writing, you're going to be hard-pressed finding a worthwhile team, organization, a capella group, or magazine that would take you.</p>
<p>... on the other hand, if you're really good at some of those things, you get to work with future professionals. It's definitely a trade-off, but some people don't want to do anything unless it's "serious". (I'm not of this type, I should say.)</p>