<p>Both these universities are outstanding choices. The OP needs to choose the one he feels has the ‘better fit’ and not worry about rankings. It’s not like an employer is looking at which university is ranked 1 or 2 and making a decision as compared to a no name university ranked 535th or something. He said he wants the well-rounded atmosphere. Some people prefer a more specialized environment. Well-rounded = Stanford as it’s not 90% STEM; but if you’re really into the STEM specialities, MIT has great students. Just because they’re STEM they also have diverse interests. My son applied to both also and has eliminated MIT and chosen Stanford. His reasoning? He loved both places and the students at both but he’d rather be surrounded by a more diverse student body than 90% STEM despite how much he loved MIT. And of course, the school spirit around sports at Stanford is a huge plus too but at MIT he could have played a varsity sport. He elected to give up the sport for the more well-rounded experience of Stanford.</p>
<p>MIT is strong in a wide variety of disciplines as well, including most social sciences, though its humanities/arts are comparatively small (but existent). Some have said that Harvard’s more equal balance ‘leaks over’ to MIT, but I’m not sure I buy that. And - small nit - about 80% of the undergrad degrees granted are in STEM fields.</p>
<p>For a CS major interested in entrepreneurship, there is no better place to go to school than Stanford. Practically every major start up in Silicon Valley has Stanford ties…really seems like an excellent place for CS.</p>
<p>phantasmagoric, you are correct that MIT has superior programs in other disciplines including social sciences and of course business. Nonetheless, the students that major in these other disciplines are the minority or they are STEM students choosing a dual major or minor. MIT is still a tech college (hence it’s name) and anyone attending will be surrounded by a majority of STEM students. For some, that is an ideal situation but for others who want a more diverse student population, Stanford would be the better choice.</p>
<p>[The</a> Philosophical Gourmet Report 2011 :: Overall Rankings](<a href=“http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/overall.asp]The”>http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/overall.asp), MIT > Stanford in philosophy, particualrly scientific philosophy.</p>
<p>Linguistics was advanced majority by MIT, so at least in that MIT> Stanford or MIT = Stanford</p>
<p>More companies in the silicon Valley were made by mIT grads than Stanford grads, I think both schools will give equal advantages in terms of Silicon Valley connections, but MIT gets an edge on Wall Street.</p>
<p>There was a study showing that if MIT companies were arraigned into one country, it would have the GDP of the 11th largest economy. MIT alumni started more companies than any other university: [Special</a> Case: MIT Alumni Companies in California for US - Entrepreneurial Impact - The Role of MIT](<a href=“http://www.scribd.com/doc/58602168/17/Special-Case-MIT-Alumni-Companies-in-California]Special”>http://www.scribd.com/doc/58602168/17/Special-Case-MIT-Alumni-Companies-in-California)</p>
<p>On college confidential, ppl assume Stanford is more well-rounded than MIT cuz Stanford has stronger history and English department. They forget that MIT has those, and in addition, some programs that Stanofrd does not have, like ROTC, ESD, urban planning, architecture, nuclear engineering, and MIT ranks high on all of them (#2 for nuclear, in the top for architecture with number in many disciplines, number 1 urban planning). Stanford has sports, but MIT has that and ROTC. MIT has many programs that Stanford simply does not offer.</p>
<p>MIT has the #1 ROTC program in the nation (naval, army, and air force training), although i think it is probably after the army and navy schools,…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And there are many others that equate the two, e.g. NRC or QS. (In fact, in NRC, Stanford’s a little ahead.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>MIT’s linguistics was rated #1 in the old NRC rankings, when Chomsky was still there. Most linguists today, however, do not follow the Chomskyan tradition, and the rankings reflect that MIT is not #1 anymore. See the new NRC rankings or the QS rankings.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Stanford has never had a complete survey or study to find all the companies that its alumni have started. The most that it has done is a small project of voluntary submissions that hasn’t ever gotten much press attention - so it counts only ~5,000. IIRC, MIT hired a company to do a full study of all the companies its alumni founded.</p>
<p>
[quote]
ppl assume Stanford is more well-rounded than MIT cuz Stanford has stronger history and English department. They forget that MIT has those, and in addition, some programs that Stanofrd does not have"</p>
<p>MIT has those, but they’re very high-quality (nor do they need to be - it’s an institute of technology after all), hence why they say that Stanford is more well rounded. ROTC is not an academic program that a university ever tries to claim. Stanford does have architecture and urban studies, and many other programs that MIT does not. You’re not going to convince anyone that MIT is more well-rounded than Stanford… on CC or IRL.</p>
<p>I want to say that you’ve drunk too much of the kool-aid, but I’m pretty certain that no kool-aid that would induce such fanboyism is served at MIT. ;)</p>
<p>MIT has a very strong entrepeneurial traditon, phantasmagoric. There are very few universities which compare; Stanford might be the only one. And entrepeneurship extends beyond simply software companies, even though that is what is relevant to the OP. </p>
<p>By the way, I doubt MIT knows every alumnus who has founded a business either, so this is an underestimate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>MIT doesn’t merely have an architecture department; it is a top 5 department. The Urban Studies department is highly rated as well (don’t remember the number.) Poli sci. is top 10 as well. The Music department is really top notch by anyone’s measure. </p>
<p>English and history have good professors, but these departments are very small. For example, I took a poetry class from a professor who had previously taught at Oxford. Another one of our literature professors recently won the Pullitzer. </p>
<p>I don’t know how much the caliber of the urban studies department is relevant to the OP, though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course, I agree MIT has a strong entrepreneurial focus (I don’t think I’ve suggested otherwise), and I would say that at best MIT and Stanford are equal for it. But if I *had *to say which one had a stronger focus, it would be Stanford; in my experience, the culture of it, being in SV, pervades the campus. I can’t say it’s quite the same at MIT or even schools that are near SV such as Berkeley. I agree that for an entrepreneur, both MIT and Stanford are the two very best choices. But for entrepreneurship and venture capital (which the OP wants to get involved in), Stanford simply can’t be beat. The landscape of Boston VC pales in comparison to Sand Hill Road alone. Stanford doesn’t have a $100k startup competition mainly because the student startups are funded directly by the companies that funded Google and Facebook; these VCs are a short walk from campus, and students/faculty interact with them on a daily basis.</p>
<p>I agree that MIT is among the very top in architecture and urban studies/planning; I was only countering the assertion that Stanford does not have those programs.</p>
<p>With this post, datalook might be hated more by MIT folks. But this is based on 2013 graduate school ranking from US news. Ranking is the result of academic peer suyveys.</p>
<p>Disclaimer: datalook has no connection to Stanford. </p>
<h1>professional schools</h1>
<p>business school: Stanford 1, MIT 4
medical school: Stanford 4, MIT NA
education school: Stanford 4, MIT NA
law school: Stanford 2, MIT NA
engineering school: Stanford 2, MIT 1</p>
<h1>sciences</h1>
<p>physics: Stanford 1, MIT 1
chemistry: Stanford 4, MIT 1
computer: Stanford 1, MIT 1
biology: Stanford 1, MIT 2
statistics, Stanford 1, MIT NA
math: Stanford 2, MIT 1
earth science: Stanford 4, MIT 2 </p>
<h1>humanities and social sciences</h1>
<p>economics Stanford 5, MIT 1
English: Stanford 2, MIT not in top 50 or not ranked
history: Stanford 1, MIT not in top 25 or not ranked
Politics: Stanford 1, MIT 9
psycology: Stanford 1, MIT 11
sociology: Stanford 5, MIT not in top 50 or not ranked </p>
<h1>Engineering majors</h1>
<p>areospace engineering: Stanford 1, MIT 2
biomedical engineering: Stanford 5, MIT 5
chemical: Stanford 5, MIT 1
industrial engineering: Stanford 4, MIT not ranked
materials: Stanford 5, MIT 1
electrical engineering: Stanford 1, MIT 1
computer engineering:Stanford 1, MIT 1
mechanical: Stanford 1, MIT 2
environmental engineering: Stanford 1, MIT 9
civil: Stanford 3, MIT 6
nuclear: Stanford not ranked, MIT 1</p>
<p>When talking about well rounded universities, the most notable ones are Stanford, Harvard, and Berkeley. MIT is not on the radar. MIT is indeed more well rounded than Caltech.</p>
<p>To underachiever,</p>
<p>MIT does have one of the top operations Research programs, but not the top program.</p>
<p>NRC ranking in OR:
Stanford R rank 1-2, S rank 1-6
MIT: R rank 2-4, S rank 1-5
George Tech: R-rank 1-3, S rank 1-7</p>
<p>The real #1 Operations Research PhD program is Stanford, not MIT. Stanford faculty and graduates have been dominating the prestigious awards such as John Von Neumann theory prize, and Frederick Lanchester prize in Operations Research. George Danzig, who invented simplex method and was called father of linear programming, used to be a Stanford professor. See
[John</a> von Neumann Theory Prize / INFORMS Prizes & Awards / Recognize Excellence / IOL Home - INFORMS.org](<a href=“http://www.informs.org/Recognize-Excellence/INFORMS-Prizes-Awards/John-von-Neumann-Theory-Prize]John”>http://www.informs.org/Recognize-Excellence/INFORMS-Prizes-Awards/John-von-Neumann-Theory-Prize)</p>
<p>and
[Frederick</a> W. Lanchester Prize / INFORMS Prizes & Awards / Recognize Excellence / IOL Home - INFORMS.org](<a href=“http://www.informs.org/Recognize-Excellence/INFORMS-Prizes-Awards/Frederick-W.-Lanchester-Prize]Frederick”>http://www.informs.org/Recognize-Excellence/INFORMS-Prizes-Awards/Frederick-W.-Lanchester-Prize)</p>
<p>Even though MIT has one of the best Operations Research Programs, given that MIT has no statistics department, and operations research is a very small field, MIT’s rank #5 in statistics and operations research by QS is way too high. To understand why I’m saying this, you may want to use Georgia Tech as a refrence. George TEch is #1 in industrial engineering (closely related to operations research) by US news, and it is about equal to MIT in NRC ranking. PLus, George Tech has a good statistics department. However, George Tech is #28 in statistics and operations research. Do you think MIT is better than Geogia Tech when statistics and OR are combined? Appanrently, MIT has been favored by QS ranking, unfairly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Surely you don’t believe the US News statistics. If you did, you might conclude that MIT undergrads are smarter on average than Stanford undergrads. I mean, look at the 25%-75% SAT ranges and the percentage of the entering class who graduated in the top 10% of their high school class. Surely, this is misleading, right?</p>
<p>Also, there is the troublesome “academic strength” subranking; I don’t believe I’ve ever seen MIT below #1 on that part of the ranking. This might be of interest to someone, you know, who might be going to school.</p>
<p>To the OP: ignore all these red heerings. Go look at the curriculums at Stanford and MIT, talk to the CS undergrads and/or graduates, visit the campuses. Then choose whichever one fits the best.</p>
<p>^ but you’re talking about statistics that exist independent of the US News ranking. If you want to compare the grad rankings to the undergrad ones, you have to look at the PA score; both MIT and Stanford get a 4.9 IIRC, which makes perfect sense. The grad rankings are based on PA as well. I believe the US News PA scores for grad programs to an extent, as they’re usually mirrored by numerous rankings not based on PA, such as NRC, QS, SJT, MS academic database, etc. The correlation can’t be a coincidence.</p>
<p>phantasmagoric,</p>
<p>Stanford’a architecuture program is almost nonexistent. It’s too small, and in fact smaller than MIT’s history or English department. MIT has number 1 computational architecture program and is always ranked in the top, competing with harvard, yale ,and columbia. Stanford is nonexistent.</p>
<p>For urban planning, MIT is number 1. [The</a> Top Schools For Urban Planners | Planetizen](<a href=“http://www.planetizen.com/topschools]The”>The Top Schools For Urban Planners | Planetizen Features)</p>
<p>Datalook, that’s my point. US News does not rank these programs. If you add such programs, MIT probably will have as such a well-ruonded existence as Stanford. I personally think investing in urban planning and architecture is more costly and useful than english and history. If there is one thing I like about MIT, its about tis culture of knowing whats worth nesting in or not. Iis practical n empirical.</p>
<p>Look , guys, stanford is my second favorite university, but i am sick of ppl posting on CC : go to stanford, cuz it will make u rich while MIT will make u an employee (not for u, phanta, but for most other stanfy posters)</p>
<p>^ FWIW I’ve never seen any Stanford-affiliated person claim that. As far as I’ve seen, on CC and IRL, people at Stanford look at MIT with a lot of respect.</p>
<p>Stanford’s architecture is an interdisciplinary program, mostly within civil engineering but drawing on mechanical engineering, design, urban studies, arts, etc. The only difference between a program and a department at Stanford is that the latter has the power to hire and fire faculty. But that doesn’t mean at all that architecture is ‘almost nonexistent.’ You should research Stanford’s programs a little more. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And that’s a hugely contentious point. Suffice to say, there’s a reason that MIT is an institute of technology and Stanford is a university - different values, different foci, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sometimes, I more or less believe that a higher SAT score implies smarter. There is a problem though. If we assume this is true, then Caltech people on average are smarter than MIT people. At graduate level, you also need to believe Yale engineers on average are smarter than MIT engineers (because the students admitted to Yale graduate engineering programs have a higher GRE math score on average). </p>
<p>Perhaps, when Stanford (and MIT to a lesser degree) selects its students, it tries harder to look beyound test scores and class ranks, such as passion, ambition, creativity, persistency, dedication, and etc. As I know, these are probably better predictors of future successs than test scores and class ranks.</p>
<p>Finally, Stanford is indeed a little better than MIT in CS, and definitely a lot more exciting place if you want to major in CS because of Silicon Valley. I can safely bet that the next IT innovation wave is much more likely to happen in Silicon Valley than in Boston. After all, in CS, Stanford + Berkeley >> MIT + Harvard.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, it doesn’t. It implies [your</a> family has a higher income](<a href=“http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/sat-scores-and-family-income/]your”>SAT Scores and Family Income - The New York Times).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That would be a fair assumption. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What is the difference–10 points? I don’t know what the statistics are.</p>
<p>The difference in stats (on average) between MIT and Stanford undergrads is much greater. I wouldn’t say the same thing about its grad students, by the way.
</p>
<p>Yes, they use holistic admissions, but if you think they are trying to admit all innovators, even in the science/engineering department, you are deluding yourself. They select largely for extracurriculars unrelated to potential innovation after the students reach some cut-off of academic potential. Of course, they take some academic stars too, but that is not their primary motivation in my observation. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>At the high end of SAT ranges, I’d bet there is a diversity of incomes. Caltech and MIT are both known as more working class schools, and our scores have always been extremely high. It’s not a country club.</p>