<p>Back to the fields that OP might be interested in (economics and business), based on Microsft research publication
in last 5 years.</p>
<p>Organizations Publications H-Index </p>
<p>H-Index6Citation1<br>
1 Harvard University 1970 54<br>
2 Stanford University 1389 53<br>
3 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1169 48<br>
4 University of Chicago 974 48<br>
5 New York University 1236 45<br>
6 National Bureau of Economic Research, United States 743 44<br>
7 University of Pennsylvania 1305 42<br>
8 University of California Berkeley 1267 41<br>
9 Princeton University 596 41 </p>
<p>This ranking is a little surprizing to me at first. To be fair, MIT has created lots of famous economists. Stanford seems a little weaker in economics. However, Stanford is a little stronger in business, with a #1 business school (tied with Harvard). So the ranking seems reasonable to me when economics and business are put together.</p>
<p>Finally, the 2012 psycology ranking by US NEWS. Psycology is a field might be interesting to OP.</p>
<h1>1 Stanford University</h1>
<p>Stanford, CA
4.7<br> #1 University of California–Berkeley
Berkeley, CA
4.7<br> #3 Harvard University
Cambridge, MA
4.6<br> #3 University of California–Los Angeles
Los Angeles, CA
4.6<br> #3 University of Michigan–Ann Arbor
Ann Arbor, MI
4.6<br> #3 Yale University
New Haven, CT
4.6<br> #7 University of Illinois–Urbana-Champaign
Urbana, IL
4.5<br> #8 Princeton University
Princeton, NJ
4.4<br> #8 University of Minnesota–Twin Cities
Minneapolis, MN
4.4<br> #8 University of Wisconsin–Madison
Madison, WI
4.4<br> #11 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, MA
4.3</p>
<p>Most schools do not allow their undergrads to take courses at the business school. Among top schools, MIT and UPenn are one of the few that do. Harvard, for instance, does not have an undergrad business major, and it is very difficult to take any classes at Harvard Business School as an undergrad. In fact, I’ve heard that Harvard people try to take classes at Sloan (MIT’s business school.) I don’t know what is the case at Stanford, but the OP should check out whether they undergrads can actually take business classes.</p>
<p>And any ranking of business schools that doesn’t have Wharton at #1 is suspect.</p>
<p>OP These are both excellent schools. Really your choice boils down to lifestyle preferences: do you want to be in an urban atmosphere and the best college town in the country – how many colleges are in Boston/Cambridge? or do you want better weather and a wealthy suburban but more bubble atmosphere? Do you like the camraderie of attending school sports events? And contrary to rumor, MIT in fact is a very collaborative place. It is one of its greatest strengths.</p>
<p>Yes, there’s a variety of courses that a student can take at GSB, mostly in entrepreneurship.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m usually cautious with the “5 years” criterion, because it’s often not accurate.</p>
<p>I don’t think that ‘hidden’ research at Google/Apple matters - the database doesn’t purport to archive all research, only publications of research. MS has a huge R&D division spanning a few continents (with 8x the R&D expenditures as Apple), and it lures the best researchers from academia with high salaries, so I’m not surprised it often tops the rankings in CS research production.</p>
<p>“Stanford CS is also small relative to its peers. It definitely has the greatest impact per faculty member.”</p>
<p>No, H-index has nothing to do with department size. Caltech is the best in terms of citation per faculty member even in computer science. </p>
<p>“Are you new to this topic? The Chinese have been producing tons and tons of research articles for quite a while. But most of them are worth very little or are worthless. They mostly do not produce high-quality research, and most of the research has little to no impact. This is a well-acknowledge phenomenon.”</p>
<p>This is the exact same question I have for you. Chinese do not publish many indexed papers until 15-20 years ago. Their paper quality appears improving rapidly. We do have more research funding than theirs in paper. But that is irrelevant, since most of our costs are eaten up by labor. For them, the same funding can stretch a long way.</p>
<p>I personally would pick MIT. You have 4 interests: psych, business, eco, and CS. MIT = Stanford in CS. MIT > Stanford in business and eco. Stanford > MIT in psychology (although MIT>Stanford in cognitive science, a related field). MIT wins in more so I would pick. Also, MIT would allow you to minor or major in business and management, not just take classes, which looks more professional. It is actually ranked number 2. If I were to only study in CS (and I do not), I would pick MIT. There are some projects here in UROP program where all psych, business, eco, and computer science wil lave to be used. Check out MIT ESD, media Lab, csial, lsd, Sloan. ESD looks like to directly match ur interest in combining those fields.</p>
<p>side note: Also MIT has more number 1 ranked business graduate programs than any other school (logistics, operations, supply chains). They are slightly weak in the humanities-business side of thing. But in terms of quantitavie business degrees, MIT beasts all and has competitions to allow you to start your company !!</p>
<p>Datalook:
The QS ranking is for “Statistics and operational research”. It is not a pure statistics ranking. The MIT has been the top for operational research in Business for years. That might explain its high rank.</p>
<p>Uh, look up the mathematical definition of the H-index. It is definitely correlated with size.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>AFAIK there’s no evidence thus far that the quality of their papers is improving ‘rapidly.’ But that may be because the international research community is focused on English. Regardless, they don’t even cite themselves in high numbers, which says something about the quality of their papers to their own research communities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Labor? And it’s clearly not being stretched a long way if the quality of the papers is poor.</p>
<p>EngineerEng,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not completely true. For CS and econ, the two are equal. In general, Stanford’s business school is ahead of MIT’s, but of course for undergrad business, MIT wins by default. But as cognitive scientist myself, I can say MIT and Stanford are about equal in cogsci: for psychology and anthropology, Stanford wins; for linguistics, philosophy, and AI, the two are equal (although the cognitive revolution has had many conflicts with the Chomskyan tradition at MIT, which fueled debates between West Coast cognitive scientists and researchers at MIT/Harvard); and for neuroscience, it depends - they’re ranked about the same, though Stanford’s med school, which has 4 departments that fall under neuroscience, may give it an edge. </p>
<p>At any rate, there’s no difference in academic quality between these two for the OP’s interests.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Stanford is generally ranked higher in entrepreneurship. I don’t think any school can beat Stanford for entrepreneurship and venture capital, which is what the OP wants to get involved in.</p>
<p>If you want to say MIT = Stanford in economics, I might well say MIT = Stanford in entrepreneurship. In fact, if you want to use approximations, MIT = Stanford for all the OP’s interests, and many many many other fields. There 2 schools are awesome and I am just splitting hair.</p>
<p>generally, MIT is seen as significantly better than Stanford. In fact, MIT is seen as the most well-rounded economics school in the world, and Stanford can only beat in theoretical economics. for labor, micro, macro, health, bla bla bla economics and anything empirical or quantitative modeling MIT easily trumps Stanford. Even if you want to overlook research rankings, <a href=“Economics | College of Liberal Arts”>Economics | College of Liberal Arts; , MIT gets 100, Stanford gets 36.</p>
<p>For linguistics and philosophy, MIT has always been ranked higher than Stanford. For anthropology, I would go to Harvard or Princeton:p For pure psychology, Stanford.</p>
<p>Except, the former is supported by numerous evidence; the latter, not so much. I also said “entrepreneurship **and **venture capital.” The largest and most prestigious VCs line the side of Stanford’s campus. It’s “the star” of Silicon Valley. Entrepreneurship is the most defining feature of Stanford - the cornerstone of the university, the reason that it’s prestigious today, its main claim to fame. If there were only one thing that you could say Stanford is good at - one thing at all - it would be entrepreneurship, which it lives, eats, and breathes, etc. In fact, MIT copied Stanford’s model of technology licensing. This isn’t even contested.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not true at all… check the rankings (I’m not about to link to all of them; if you don’t do the research yourself, you shouldn’t assert it). Same goes for econ - you cite one (obscure) ranking, which defies all other (credible) econ rankings that show the two on par with each other.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But you just said that Stanford is better in psychology, did you not? So by definition…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not the “number” that matters - it’s the sheer volume and impact of the work done across those departments. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Statements like that significantly erode your credibility. ;)</p>
<p>It’s a recurring theme: Stanford comes up, poster proclaims MIT is far superior in areas where they’re about the same, an explosion occurs, etc. That’s part of the reason I seldom engage the MIT board, as there are always a few rabid posters (high school students? I’ve hoped) who refuse to believe that there may exist another university that is MIT’s equal in certain areas. In any case the OP is getting a fairly two-sided account.</p>
<p>^Actually, I think the discussion was pretty fair and even-handed until datalook showed up in post #12 with his incessant Stanford boosterism – is that an unfair characterization?</p>
<p>^ no, definitely - I was going to comment on datalook in my last post, but didn’t want to start a war with him too. (FWIW I’ve called datalook out a few times before for his incessant boosterism.)</p>