Stanford or MIT?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Stanford University
21

<p>

</p>

<p>EngineerEng, since your very first post a year ago, the only times I’ve ever seen you come into the fray are when Stanford and MIT are being compared. You cheerlead for MIT and spread misinformation about Stanford. You seem to know very little about Stanford, and continually make absurd claims about it.</p>

<p>Stanford and MIT are equal in STEM. There are areas of study where one is stronger than the other. Look at the NRC rankings, US News rankings, QS rankings, etc. - for all intents and purposes, the two are equal in STEM. </p>

<p>Fun fact: did you know that Stanford has more faculty in the National Academy of Engineering? Or that it has almost 2x the # of faculty in the National Academy of Science? This is despite having a smaller faculty in STEM. This doesn’t make Stanford ‘better,’ as MIT has a great many such faculty as well, but it’s one way in which MIT does not surpass Stanford, as one would assume for things like NAE or NAS membership. If you go to [url=<a href=“http://academic.research.microsoft.com/]this”>http://academic.research.microsoft.com/]this</a> database<a href=“the%20most%20comprehensive%20STEM%20database%20of%20papers”>/url</a>, you see that Stanford has a much higher H-index. Even long before MS started adding humanities/social sciences (which are a only a small part of the database now), Stanford’s H-index in STEM fields was higher than MIT’s. Again, doesn’t make Stanford better (as the difference was marginal), but the point is that MIT does not dominate hands-down in STEM fields as you would assume.</p>

22

<p>By the way, last year Stanford had two Marshall Scholars; MIT had one. The year before, Stanford had 4, MIT 2. Stanford also has more winning the Rhodes, Mitchell, and Gates-Cambridge scholarships, among others; this year Stanford had 5 Rhodes, more than even Harvard. Part of this is a function of Stanford’s size and greater breadth. But more importantly, comparing who wins more scholarships is pointless at this level; it doesn’t show anything about the students or the institution, nor does it demonstrate whether a given student is more well-rounded, and certainly not whether the student body as a whole is more well-rounded. (Trying to extrapolate to the entire student body based on two students who happened to win a scholarship is absolutely nonsensical.)</p>

23

<p>Looking for an honest answer between Stanford vs. MIT.
My son has pretty much crossed out all the ivies, including Harvard and thinks it is down to Stanford and MIT. I have another son at MIT so I know the work load is grueling but everyone is in it together. Is the workload any less intense at Stanford for an engineering major. I want my son to have a fun college experience and want to know if it will really be any different between the two schools for comparable stem majors? I expected him to dislike MIT but he loved CPW, I am hoping he will love Stanford’s admit event too.</p>

24

<p>CS+venture capitalist+entrepreneur+well-rounded experience+weather+prestige, ect. = STANFORD
Stanford seems perfect for you!!</p>

25

<p>

I can’t say anything definitive for the first, although a hunch might be slightly less workload at Stanford. I’m in engineering at Stanford, and I think it’s pretty fun. It’s a lot of work too, but I enjoy it. The biggest problem is high unit loads, which limits one’s broader academic exploration. That said, I’ve still found time to take about 45% of my classes as electives.</p>

26

<p>bluebird, one argument in favor of Stanford is that your S will spend the rest of his career surrounded by STEM-types. Now is a great time to socialize with the non-STEM part of the world and gain an appreciation for their very different goals and aspirations. That balance on campus makes it a very different academic experience than MIT. Likewise the big sports scene (a plus for some, a minus for others). </p>

<p>The other plus for Stanford is the great weather: It’s much easier to try something new, something outside your comfort zone, if you don’t have to brave sleet, snow, ice to get there. D ran her first half marathon last year!</p>

27

<p>thanks senior and mom
I think Stanford is a better match. Sports scene is a big plus, he is not nerdy/geeky at all.
I am hoping Stanford does just as great of a job for their admit weekend as MIT does CPW.
Harvard’s was not very exciting according to S, I guess they assume you are enrolling so it is more informational than enticing.</p>

28

<p>bluebird, Stanford’s Admit Weekend is always a blast, and gives a good preview of the more rounded experience available here than at MIT. I thought CPW was very cool as well, and MIT was the only other school that I considered, but Stanford just offers so much more and a superior quality of life, IMO.</p>

29

<p>Thanks zenkoan. I have felt the same way that Stanford will likely have a better quality of life- just wanted to make sure that extends to engineering students to. I am trying to push my S figure things out on his own but he does ask for advice and I really want him to find the school he will be happiest at want.</p>

30

<p>oops on the extra want above</p>

31

<p>According to NAE website [NAE</a> Website - Members](<a href=“http://www.nae.edu/MembersSection.aspx]NAE”>NAE Website - Members)
NAS website [National</a> Academy of Sciences](<a href=“National Academy of Sciences”>National Academy of Sciences)
and IOM website <a href=“http://www.iom.edu/Global/Directory.aspx[/url]”>http://www.iom.edu/Global/Directory.aspx&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>NAE: national academy of engineering
NAS: national academy of science
IOM: institute of medicine</p>

<p>NAE membership: Stanford (94), MIT (109)
NAS membership: Stanford (136), MIT (116)
IOM membership: Stanford (69), MIT (38)</p>

32

<p>The official databases don’t update info on those who have moved institutions. MIT’s official count of NAE membership in 2011 was 78. Its NAS membership was 60, IOM 33. But in the [2012</a> edition](<a href=“http://web.mit.edu/facts/faculty.html]2012”>Faculty & Instructional Staff – MIT Facts) of the faculty page, MIT doesn’t bother to mention academy membership - I don’t know why, since all the previous editions included them, and since the 2012 one updated all the other award counts. But archive.org still [shows[/url</a>] it.</p>

<p>Stanford’s [url=&lt;a href=“http://facts.stanford.edu/faculty.html]official”&gt;http://facts.stanford.edu/faculty.html]official</a> count](<a href=“http://web.archive.org/web/20110604152042/http://web.mit.edu/facts/faculty.html]shows[/url”>MIT Facts 2011: Faculty and Staff) for those three in 2012 is 94, 150, and 64, which I assume includes those who have left or joined the university.</p>

33

<p>I think the national academies website is more fair. At least it uses the same methodology when counting the membership of an institution. MIT website used to count the active faculty members only (retired faculty members were excluded). That is why it had less numbers than the numbers shown on the national academies website.</p>

<p>Any way, when you combine science and engineering together, Stanford and MIT are pretty much tied up in total membership of NAS and NAE. But in IOM, Stanford has a clear edge because Stanford has a medical school.</p>

34

<p>How can the database be “more fair” when it isn’t updated by current institution? It lists institution at induction date, not where they are currently. So official counts from the university are more useful, because they tell you how many such scholars are currently at the university. Both Stanford and MIT get new faculty each year who have academy membership but were at another university when they were inducted.</p>

<p>Of course, Stanford does have an advantage because of its medical school, but MIT also has a strong representation in the health sciences, as evidenced by its IOM membership. Also, many if not most of the faculty in the med school have joint or courtesy appointments in other schools (the med school is integrated with the university, unlike at many other universities, e.g. Harvard).</p>

<p>It’s funny - I don’t like to argue against MIT, but when fanboys espouse wrong information about it, it ends up seeming like I’m criticizing MIT. To be clear, I’m not declaring Stanford ‘better’ than MIT here (esp. since these counts also have to do with size) - just countering the notion that MIT is ‘better’ for STEM. It isn’t. The two are about equal, though each has its own strengths (and there’s a lot of overlap as well where the difference in quality is indistinguishable).</p>

35

<p>

</p>

<p>I think the national academy website utilizes the current working institution as the affiliated institution. For example, Steven Chu was elected into NAS in 1993 at Stanford, and he is not working at Stanford anymore. In NAS website, his institution is shown as US department of energy, not Stanford. I also believe that the national academy website tries to keep its information up to date. But it may not update the information very frequently.</p>

<p>If you look at a university’s website numbers, they may have different meanings. Stanford counts all faculty members (current or retired), but in the past MIT might only count its active faculty members (who were still teaching or doing research) when showing its national academy’s memberships.</p>

36

<p>I’m not surprised Steven Chu’s is updated given that he’s the Secretary of Energy and a Nobel Laureate. :wink: Most professors aren’t afforded such attention.</p>

<p>Stanford’s doesn’t count retired (see the description on the facts website) - if it did, its numbers would be even higher. But even if that were the case, your criticism obviously applies to the NAE database as well: MIT does not have 109 current faculty in the NAE, as you just said, so it would be including those who are retired. But it’s also including those whose affiliations are old. Since these two confounding factors make the NAE database even more unreliable, it makes more sense to see what their official counts are, straight from the horse’s mouth.</p>

<p>Either way, whatever the exact numbers are, the difference is probably attributable largely to the med school, SLAC, and/or differences in size (though it’s hard to pinpoint how many faculty are in STEM fields, esp. given how interdisciplinary Stanford is).</p>

<p>And the end result is the same: neither MIT nor Stanford is better than the other for STEM fields, EOD.</p>

37

<p>I enrolled at Stanford yesterday. :)</p>

38

<p>Hello,
I am currently at Stanford (visiting) and really need to make a choice soon. I didn’t really feel at home at Stanford and think I may only feel at home at mit because of mites. I am interested in a premed track with a major in bio or biomedical engineering. Any advice? Any pros and cons that may make a major difference? I dislike the big campus of Stanford, but is that really a valid complaint? Is the lack of a med school at mit a big con, considering Stanford med really prefers its own undergrads?
Thanks. </p>

<p>Sent from my SPH-D710 using CC</p>

39

<p>MyHandIsADolphin - awesome! The final decision always feels great, because you are officially done with the whole process. :)</p>

<p>lolToasty,</p>

<p>I think the campus may seem bigger than it is right now - during Admit Weekend, it seems enormous, but that’s mainly because you haven’t gotten a handle on it yet. Yes, it’s true that the campus is large, but central campus is not. So things like the stadium, Vaden, etc. are off to the side, but the core campus is very dense (with all the academic buildings, libraries, student unions, etc.). Notice also that most of the campus is joined together, i.e. no large stretches of emptiness (except for the arboretum). The buildings, both residential and academic, are pretty dense, and in many parts the population density is equal to that of New York City. Stanford also has a lot more facilities in a lot more disciplines, so it needs all the space. Each section is logical and runs right into the next: the med school / hospitals, the science and engineering areas/quad, the humanities/sciences area (Main Quad), libraries/White Plaza, undergraduate housing (which radiates out from there), graduate housing, athletic area (DAPER). It can seem overwhelming, but it’s well-organized and relatively dense - there’s just more of it.</p>

<p>I’m not sure whether Stanford med school prefers its own undergrads, though I have a few friends who are there now. MIT does have a health sciences building, but the main med facilities in the Harvard-MIT health sciences and technology division are in the Longwood area of Boston a few miles away. The main advantage of the med school is that it offers courses for you to take, along with professors to work with, research to get involved in, facilities to use, etc. Having a med school (currently ranked #4 by US News) integrated right on campus could give you an advantage that most pre-meds don’t have. Many schools don’t have the med school on the same campus, and of those that do, it’s separated or it doesn’t really involve undergrads. Stanford is different in that it’s not just on campus, but it’s integrated and involves its undergrads. It’s a big plus to your med school applications to have a transcript with med school classes, recommendations from top med school profs, and/or research done at one of the top research med schools.</p>

<p>That said, it is important for you to follow your gut on this. For all you know, you won’t end up being premed (MIT is known to be a GPA killer, but Stanford’s BME is no walk in the park either, although human biology is better on GPA, which is why it’s the most common premed major) - in which case it won’t matter that Stanford has a med school. If you feel more at home at MIT, then you should go where you feel at home.</p>