@JamesVanc the place most of the names you mention became successful was Stanford. They did graduate degrees there, they met their partners there, took advantage of Stanfors resources to scale up their company.
Your anti-Stanford obsession is embarrassing and has the opposite effect from what you want. Anyone can see through these ludicrous posts.
I don’t disagree that @JamesVanc seems to have it out for Stanford, @Penn95 - but are you really in a position to criticize? You’re cheerleading for Stanford on how many threads right now? Starting to feel like dueling agendas here.
@penn95 do you work for Stanford admissions? @DeepBlue86 thanks for giving us all some perspective.
@DeepBlue86 @collegedad13 yes I am in a position to criticize. Whatever I say is based on facts. i don’t start ludicrous, unsubstantiated threads extolling Stanford and its virtues (that would be the equivalent to what @JamesVanc is doing), i am simply replying to existing threads with facts. there is a different there, surely you can see it.
@collegedad13 no i don’t work for Stanford admissions lol. are you new to CC? there are many people who express their preference for one school or the other. i keep it objective though.
I am totally agree with @Penn95. The OP is anti- Stanford person.
I think the OP is trying to keep it objective. They just don’t believe all the Stanford hype and are expressing their opinion. Frankly though who cares who has the most billionaires. To 99.9999 per cent of the students it will never make a difference. Who cares who has the most nobel prize winners. Some of them can be awful teachers.
The OP is not trying to keep it objective. Look at the title of this thread. Completely unsubstantiated by the data he provides. He provides a list of people most of whom went to college decades ago, fails to mention how many of them actually came later to Stanford for grad school and that is when they started their business, fails to mention any successful Stanford grads, and from that asserts that nowadays Stanford is not that successful in the high-tech start up industry. In other post he claimed Stanford pre-law is weaker than Yale because there are not as many Stanford grads at Yale Law. A quick look through his past posts will convince you that he is anything but objective and most of his arguments do not make sense.
“What’s wrong with Stanford students?” is not keeping it objective. OP has some sort of agenda and they don’t care about evidence to the contrary.
The OP has been trying to compare S with H College, not grad schools. His purpose might be to convince those H-S cross-admits to go somewhere in the east. I wish the OP could come up with a better way to do this.
After May 1, all decisions will be made, so this thread will be lost in the web.
@collegedad13 Between your ignorant posts about athletes being Neanderthals and rapists and OP " trying to keep it objective", I question the judgement of anything you post. If you can’t see the obvious logical flaws in every thread that OP hast posted then I suggest you think harder about it.
The OP started a Princeton forum thread (http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/princeton-university/1980109-stanford-is-now-better-more-selective-than-princeton-p1.html) in which he posed the following very needy question:
“Do you think Stanford has now become more prestigious than Princeton ?”
It’s unfortunate to see such an insecure Princetonian cry out for attention and validation this way. I don’t want to hurt your feelings by telling you the truth. So if in your fantasy world, Stanford does not have a lower acceptance rate and a higher yield rate and beat Princeton by a 3 to 1 advantage for cross-admits, you should believe whatever you wanna believe. And if you wanna believe it’s okay to wear orange and black when it’s not Halloween, you could do that too.
I went away for a few hours and this thread sure got nasty…maybe everyone should just chill.
@Penn95 - my central observation was that you and @JamesVanc both seem to have agendas. Since you objected, I had a quick look at your posting history to see if I was being unfair, and I don’t think so. You’ve published at least 33 posts today, probably more than most people here put out in a month, and most of which are variations on the same theme. That feels like an agenda to me.
It seems to me, by the way, that the most vociferous arguments about relative prestige seem to center on Stanford and UChicago.
If that were true this site would be much less active!
I don’t know, @bodangles - I have 461 (now 462, I guess) posts in the last 2+ years. I might be an outlier, I suppose.
This is exactly my point. Even though Stanford has lower admit rate & higher yield, Stanford undergrad’s performance is mediocre. Currently the most successful tech firm founded by Stanford undergrad is Snapchat, which is mediocre compared to Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Intel, Cisco etc.
Two possible explanations are 1) lower quality students are applying to Stanford. 2) Top students became mediocre after receiving Stanford undergraduate education.
Is there any other explanation why Stanford undergrads can not produce top 10 World-class tech firms ?
The explanation is that your premise is biased to make the outcome you want to see. That’s not logic, that’s a foregone conclusion.
As the date of this article, October 2016, Stanford by far was the leader of funded tech startups.
https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/02/stanford-mit-lead-in-graduating-funded-startup-founders/
Even though, Stanford got so much funding, why Stanford undergrads can not produce world class top 10 tech billionare ?
Large start-up funding + Stanford undergrad == mediocar tech firm like SnapChat ???
Snapchat is worth like $20B by recent estimates. How mediocre! That’s more money than we’ll all see in our entire lives.
HP is in the top 10. No?