<p>
[Quote]
Wow, Byerly, you're pretty sad.
[/Quote]
[Quote]
Everyone, Byerly is right.
Byerly, you have once again proved Harvard's superiority to Stanford.
All of us here on the Stanford board defer to your great wisdom. A wisdom which, no doubt, allows you to fit in perfectly with the others at Harvard. We are humbled by your prescence, and Salute you, O great Harvard person.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>I hope you're being sarcastic :confused:</p>
<p>Yeah that was sarcasm. I don't know how you could think of it as otherwise</p>
<p>Why exactly do Stanford students need bikes to get to class, but Harvard students do not?</p>
<p>It MUST be because Harvard students are on average much more fit!</p>
<p>Plenty of bikes at Harvard, too - I doubt they're more fit - as you might have discovered!</p>
<p>I think Tranman was being sarcastic byerly.</p>
<p>I know he was.</p>
<p>this is how we get our cheap thrills, arguing with complete strangers on an internet forum...</p>
<p>having said that, i love the biting sarcastic remarks, keep 'em up!</p>
<p>"But the undeniable fact that the "real" campus area is larger at Harvard than it is at Stanford, primarily due to the fact that it is a somewhat larger, more complex operation."
"Larger, more complex"? Would that be the larger number of graduate students on campus? Stanford's undergraduate operations are certainly larger and more complex.</p>
<p>hey, so, besides land ;) ...</p>
<p>not to hate on cali ppl, but I read that Stanford has almost 40% of the student body from Cali. Does that affect the atmosphere a lot? It just seems like a very large percentage to me considering that it is private, etc.</p>
<p>How do the liberal arts programs compare? I know both schools have course distribution requirements. I know a good deal of the liberal arts at Stanford is in programs like IHUM, PWR, SLE, etc. etc.-- how good is the "rounded" education at Stanford?</p>
<p>and zephyr... what do you mean by that?</p>
<p>And, any other thoughts about Stanford or Harvard, besides weather and the engr. depts... and land? Thanks!</p>
<p>previous post,</p>
<p>"Wow, Byerly, you're pretty sad."</p>
<p>I concur. Why the heck do you always spit out your ridiculous pro-Harvard propanganda every time you can. It's pretty immature.</p>
<p>Stanford is 44% instate, actually.</p>
<p>hahahaha, here we go again...</p>
<p>According to the 2006 USNews, Stanford is 47% instate overall. But that was based on stats for the Class of 2008.</p>
<p>It appears that the Class of 2009 was "only" 40% in-state, pulling the overall percentage down to 44% instate, as I said orginally.</p>
<p>mlee, I was implying that Stanford makes its undergraduate education a larger operation than certain other schools.</p>
<p>As for your concern about a lot of in-staters, you must realize California is a huge state. Harvard has about 17% of kids in-state for a population of 6.4 million, California is 44% in state for a population of 33.8 million. </p>
<p>You get a huge mix of kids from California, considering how big the state is.</p>
<p>students on the west coast who want to stay nearer to home but still want to go to a top school will often choose stanford, as it is one of the only schools of its caliber on the west
on the east coast, students who don't want to move across the country to go to school have the choice to attend MANY institutions of similar prestige and caliber (the entire ivy league, mit, amherst, williams, etc)
the problem with the argument that detractors make about stanford's high percentage of in-state students is that they don't even consider california's size and influence in the west. like zephyr said, california has a population of 33.8 million. No offense to other western states, but california essentially IS the west coast.
if harvard were the only ivy league school on the east coast, do you have any idea how high a percentage of northeastern state students would be represented there? i would imagine that harvard's in-state student percentage would also rise dramatically, as there would be no students opting to go to mit, or other ivy league institutions.</p>
<p>I didn't mean to say the in-state value is a good or bad thing; since it is such a top private school, it clearly does not choose its students BECAUSE they are from cali. No doubt, the higher value is, as you said, due to the large cali population without any comparable institution nearby to compete against it. </p>
<p>I just wanted to know, I guess from the experience of current students, how the high proportion of californian students at Stanford affects life there, mainly outside the classroom. I guess that's quite a vague question, but I'd appreciate your thoughts nonetheless.</p>
<p>sorry mlee, i wasn't directing that post at you, sorry if i made it sound that way</p>
<p>"Size of campus has little to do with "superiority""</p>
<p>LOL. I agree. That was my kids' perspective more than mine. Their feet got tired on the other tours. Lazy bums!</p>
<p>OTOH there are advantages to being very small, as well as advantages to being large.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You get a huge mix of kids from California, considering how big the state is.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree. The fact is, California might as well be different states, from a cultural standpoint. SoCal and NorCal differ greatly from each other, that while they are technically within the same state, they share very little in common. And neither of them share much in common with the Inland Empire. Moving from Fresno to the Bay Area is almost like driving to a completely different state. </p>
<p>Contrast that with the states in the Northeast. While I don't want to stereotype, let's be honest. Is there really that much difference between Connecticut and Rhode Island? Or New Hampshire and Maine? I would argue that there are far more cultural differences between San Francisco and Fresno than there are between Connecticut and Rhode Island.</p>
<p>The difference between Riverside and majors parts of LA are pretty negligible.</p>