Stanford vs Cambridge, UK?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Stanford University
21

<p>^ agreed. </p>

<p>I don’t like the tutorial system, either - when I’m in an intimate setting (and I was fortunate enough to have a few classes like that at Stanford), I don’t want it to focus so much on writing. Of course writing is important, but there are many other forms of learning that the tutorials fail to emphasize. How old is the tutorial system anyway? Modern pedagogy has discovered many other equally useful techniques of teaching and learning.</p>

<p>I’d also agree on the culture point that someone brought up - my understanding is that students at Oxbridge aren’t as involved in extracurricular endeavors as students in the US. I have a feeling that the social scenes are drastically different, though obviously I don’t have personal experience with Oxbridge.</p>

<p>I dislike the college system that they have. Yale, Princeton, etc. have a residential college system that I could deal with, but Oxbridge take it to an extreme (being admitted to specific majors within specific colleges, etc.).</p>

<p>I also think Stanford’s much more diverse, in most senses of the word. Oxbridge are overwhelmingly white and have few low-income students, and the UK lends little geographic diversity. And as much as Oxbridge like to say that they’re just as competitive to get into as US schools, they’re not. The population of the US is 5x the size of the UK, so it’s naturally more competitive and it shows in the student bodies. The most that could be said is that the two systems are just different - e.g. there are majors at Oxbridge that have a high acceptance rate, whereas such is immaterial at Stanford since it doesn’t admit by major.</p>

<p>And there are academic differences that Oxbridge are very unwilling to admit, like the difference in research spending (Stanford spends like 2x the amount that either one spends on it), faculty quality (they’re much better paid at Stanford and proportionally more accomplished), and departmental quality (Oxbridge are public schools in the end and can’t support themselves with their endowments, so they don’t have the resources that schools like Stanford do).</p>

22

<p>I do find it interesting that Stanford (which has risen to the ranks of a nationally first class institution really only within the past 25 years) is considered by its inhabitants to be hands-down superior to internationlly renowned institutions with track records that have withstood the test of time for over 800-900 years (or for that matter 200-300 years within the U.S.).</p>

23

<p>^ Compared with some of famous Chinese temples of over 2000 years, Oxbridge have a very short history. Nobody says those temples are more famous than Stanford.</p>

<p>It might cost a lifetime of an Oxbridge scholar to research certain things back to 800 years ago. Today, to research the same things, it may just cost a minute of a 10-year old to find them on google.</p>

24

<p>

</p>

<p>I also find it interesting that you feel the need to jab at Stanford on these boards every chance you get. Really, Dad2, when will you give up?</p>

<p>Just because it’s old does not mean that it has proven quality today. The College of William & Mary is the second-oldest in the US, and I think most would agree that schools like Stanford, U Chicago, etc. are better despite being much younger. Harvard is several hundred years younger than Oxbridge and yet nobody would put them above Harvard.</p>

<p>That’s because quality can change and does not necessarily stand the test of time (as ewho pointed out, there are several universities in the world that are far older than Oxbridge and nowhere near their quality today).</p>

<p>Always it comes down to funding. And since Oxbridge are public, it’s hard to compare it to private universities with large endowments. So let’s just look at operating budget: how much do they spend? Cambridge’s budget is $1b (USD); Stanford’s is $4b. It spends far more on faculty, research, etc. - Stanford’s research budget is $1.25b whereas Oxford’s is $350m. Stanford’s research is far more highly cited, and its faculty has a higher proportion of highly-cited professors with prestigious awards; Microsoft Academic Search puts Stanford’s h-index at 412, versus Cambridge’s 272 and Oxford’s 260 (compare to Harvard’s 410, Yale’s 242, and Princeton’s 297). Of course, this database has mostly social sciences and STEM fields indexed, but it’s just one of many measures of academic quality that places Stanford and Harvard above Oxbridge.</p>

<p>Yes, Oxbridge are great universities, easily comparable to HYPSM. Notice that I didn’t say that Stanford is better on the whole (or “hands-down superior” as you say), but rather in specific academic measures like research, faculty, etc. which is objectively true. Oxbridge have been and still are at the top, again, but that does not mean they can’t be dethroned from things like research. Harvard and Stanford have done that.</p>

<p>edit: Stanford also didn’t “rise in the ranks” in the last 25 years. When the Association of American Universities started, Stanford was a founding member, so needless to say it was already a prestigious university then. When Stanford was starting out, the founders asked the Harvard president how much it would take to replicate Harvard, and Stanford in turn spent 3x as much. I read an article (which I can find if you like) from the early 1960s that talked about how Stanford had been dominating other universities, luring away lots of their professors, etc. </p>

<p>Dad2, your attempts to trivialize Stanford - yet again - are just plain sad.</p>