<p>Indeed Kahn , Cerf developed the protocols. As you might know the joke, that could be applied to pigeon-based msg mechanism as well. When DARPA contracted BBN and Stanford to implement the protocols, but they couldn't until Bill Joy showed up.
Implementation is what counts in engineering.
(Sorry about continuing along this line.)</p>
<p>marlgirl: agreed that the college has to be a good fit.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Indeed Kahn , Cerf developed the protocols. As you might know the joke, that could be applied to pigeon-based msg mechanism as well. When DARPA contracted BBN and Stanford to implement the protocols, but they couldn't until Bill Joy showed up.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, no, not quite. BBN already had a functioning stack. What Joy did was make an improved stack for BSD UNIX, optimized for high-bandwidth networks. While this was obviously a major achievement, let's not make it out to be greater than it was. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Indeed Kahn , Cerf developed the protocols. As you might know the joke, that could be applied to pigeon-based msg mechanism as well. When DARPA contracted BBN and Stanford to implement the protocols, but they couldn't until Bill Joy showed up.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, no, not quite. BBN already had a functioning stack. What Joy did was make an improved stack for BSD UNIX, optimized for high-bandwidth networks. While this was obviously a major achievement, let's not make it out to be greater than it was. </p>
<p>1) 18 ties to Turing prize, more than 1/3 of the prizes awarded.
The number of Stanford's ties to Turing prize, the 'Nobel' prize in computing, is #1 in the world. No other school is even close, perhaps except Berkeley.</p>
<p>2) Stanford faculty and students have created some of the most famous companies, such as
HP,
SUN,
CISCO,
SILICON GRAPHICS,
YAHOO,
GOOGLE,
NETSCAPE.</p>
<p>Again, no other school is even close. </p>
<p>3) Stanford faculty and graduates have invented or at least played the leading role in lots of new technologies in the last 30 years, more than any other university in the world:
internet (Former Stanford professor Vinton Cerf is widely refered as 'the father of internet') ,
internet router (invented by Stanford researcher Bill Yeager),
DSL broad band internet connection (Invented by Stanford professor John Cioffi),
TEX (invented by the great Don Knuth, a long time faculty member, who laid the foundation of computer science),
Google search engine (invented by Stanford Ph.D students Page and Brin),
artificial inelligence (Stanford Professor John MacCarthy coined this word)
expert system (Stanford professor Edward Feigenbaum is called the father of expert system),
1st computer controlled robot car (Stanford Cart),
1st computer controlled robot arm (Stanford arm, invented by stanford ph.d Victor Scheiman),
digital music sytheses (invented by Stanford professor John Chowning, licensed by YAMAHA)
GPS (Global positioning system, Bradford Parkinson),
microprocessor (invented by Stanford ph.d Ted Hoff),
UNIX workstation (invented by a Stanford Ph.d student Andy Bechtolshem),
micro array,
MATLAB (invented by Stanford graduates)
RISC (Stanford president John Hennessy).
Again, I believe no other school is even close.</p>
<p>In 1995 NATIONAL REASEARCH COUNCIL Ph.D programs ranking, Stanford was ranked #1 in computer science, followed by MIT, Berkeley, and CMU. IN USNEWS CS ranking, only Stanford has been ranked #1 in all years.</p>
<p>Just so you guys know, it's the person that makes the institution. Even if the Google guys had met at MIT, there would still be a Google...</p>
<p>you might be right. But great minds tend to meet at Stanford, more so than at other places.</p>
<p>"Just so you guys know, it's the person that makes the institution. Even if the Google guys had met at MIT, there would still be a Google..."</p>
<p>Not true. Fact of the matter is that there are smart people <em>everywhere</em> in the world, and that certainly includes Stanford, Harvard, and MIT. A key point is that students need to have opportunities available to them, and to be in an environment that promotes forward thinking and risk-taking.</p>
<p>I'd argue that Stanford is far stronger in these latter two factors than any other university in the world, and that it's put even more "distance" between itself and its nearest competitors in recent years. Stanford, its faculty, and its alums essentially created what is now Silicon Valley and the "new economy." Having said that, two caveats: (1) this may be more relevant for graduate students than undergraduates, and (2) although this applies to entrepreneurship, it certainly doesn't mean that it necessarily translates to true academic "quality."</p>
<p>In another thread, other people already listed the companies that MIT grads founded, I'd just spare this thread with details. </p>
<p>Well the fact remains that a Harvard dropout started and runs a company that has market cap comparable to the sum of the companies listed here. Does that imply a fraction of Harvard eduaction is equal to the whole or even the sum of all these guys' education put together? Prob not in any sane
person's mind.</p>
<p>This thread is about qualities of undergrad education. The evidence cited above has no direct bearing on it. And like I said earlier, almost none of the founders of the companies on your list was a undergrad at Stanford.
One can even argue that the more research results or more extra-curriculum activities like starting companies by the faculty members is a major NEGATIVE for the undergrad education. If these guys are funded by research grants, VC money, fat consulting or advisor money, industry contracts, where is the time or incentive to teach CS101?</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
One can even argue that the more research results or more extra-curriculum activities like starting companies by the faculty members is a major NEGATIVE for the undergrad education. If these guys are funded by research grants, VC money, fat consulting or advisor money, industry contracts, where is the time or incentive to teach CS101?
[/QUOTE]
I can't really tell you why but they do. For example Eric Roberts (a brilliant famous CS professor) teaches a humanities class for freshman! I should know I took it! He teaches this humanities class in order to try to bridge the gap between fuzzies and techies. He could be doing a zillion other things in his time but instead he teaches 400 freshman!</p>
<p>Some profs do focus more on research, yet many profs have great research and love to teach students. Stanford has a shopping period where for the first two weeks you can shop around for classes and still be figuring out which classes (and which profs) you like best. It makes it pretty easy to avoid bad profs and seek out good profs. Bad profs will exist at any research university.</p>
<p>"In another thread, other people already listed the companies that MIT grads founded, I'd just spare this thread with details. Well the fact remains that a Harvard dropout started and runs a company that has market cap..."</p>
<p>Every university has had successful graduates. A main point of my post was that atmosphere & culture play a key role in incubating eyes, and Stanford today is far more advanced than any other institution in providing these opportunities. For example, the big companies founded by Harvard/MIT grads were older, whereas the big ones founded by Stanford grads have largely defined the entire Internet culture in the "new" economy).</p>
<p>"One can even argue that the more research results or more extra-curriculum activities like starting companies by the faculty members is a major NEGATIVE for the undergrad education."</p>
<p>Of course. But the point here is that at <em>every</em> major research university, the faculty are driven by research (or consulting, entrepreneurship, etc) rather than teaching. For better or worse, the onus is largely placed on the student to seek out academic opportunities in that type of environment -- some students thrive in that type of atmosphere, whereas others simply do not. Students who want to work in atmosphere with strong "teaching" cultures might be better served at smaller liberal arts colleges.</p>
<p>def980: i dont really think you took that as the joke it was meant to be</p>
<p>however, the same load of crap happened at my school with the harvard ea admits</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well the fact remains that a Harvard dropout started and runs a company that has market cap comparable to the sum of the companies listed here. Does that imply a fraction of Harvard eduaction is equal to the whole or even the sum of all these guys' education put together? Prob not in any sane
person's mind.</p>
<p>This thread is about qualities of undergrad education. The evidence cited above has no direct bearing on it. And like I said earlier, almost none of the founders of the companies on your list was a undergrad at Stanford.
One can even argue that the more research results or more extra-curriculum activities like starting companies by the faculty members is a major NEGATIVE for the undergrad education. If these guys are funded by research grants, VC money, fat consulting or advisor money, industry contracts, where is the time or incentive to teach CS101?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Then, by all logical means of reasoning, any ounce of distinction or achievement attained by a professor is synonymous to a decline in undergraduate education quality? My CS professor just won the Turing...there goes Stanford's CS department!</p>
<p>The point is that the landscape of technology and innovation engendered by Stanford and its alumni helps facilitate an awareness and an interest in the very fields the aforementioned entrepreneurs helped establish. The evidence cited above has no direct bearing to the undergrad education? I disagree. Hard to refute the influence of Silicon Valley on the quality of undergraduate education at Stanford. Yes, undergraduate.</p>
<p>Bravo.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If these guys are funded by research grants, VC money, fat consulting or advisor money, industry contracts, where is the time or incentive to teach CS101?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Do you honestly think the brilliant minds behind technology today are NOT fueled by an innate curiosity and interest in the topics they may teach? Do you really think the spoils earned from achievement will make a professor focus LESS on the topics they teach (and obviously excelled in. and obviously love)?</p>
<p>It's really an asinine argument to claim that faculty distinction is a "MAJOR negative" for undergrad education.</p>
<p>"Do you honestly think the brilliant minds behind technology today are NOT fueled by an innate curiosity and interest in the topics they may teach? Do you really think the spoils earned from achievement will make a professor focus LESS on the topics they teach (and obviously excelled in. and obviously love)?</p>
<p>It's really an asinine argument to claim that faculty distinction is a "MAJOR negative" for undergrad education."</p>
<p>They buy out their teaching duty with grant money/external contract, reduce the teaching load to bare minimum or none, as evidenced by the increasing amount of "lecturers" hired by Stanford CS department. As a matter of fact, last I checked, up to CS106, they're all taught by the lecturers. The more research I do, the more I'm convinced that Stanford is a very different system from Harvard, MIT, in terms of undergrad education.
I agree that students with an entrepreneur spirit will benefit, but those aren't the norm. And for the special type, as shown by Gates, Job, Ellison, etc. they don't need Harvard, Stanford, MIT, in order to get somewhere (maybe not applicable for Gates, he at least needed to go to Harvard to meet his roomate and poker buddy, Steve Ballman).</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>2) Stanford faculty and students have created some of the most famous companies, such as....<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>If you are going to rate American universities based on the fame or success or wealth of the institutions its graduates founded, then Harvard will easily trump all. Because a bunch of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America were Harvard grads, including key leaders such as John Adams and Samuel Adams.</p>
<p>The trend continues from there up to and including Gates and Ballmer at Microsoft and Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook.</p>
<p>There are many fine universities in the US, and Stanford is among the very best. But Harvard has been leading the way for 370 years.</p>
<p>
[quote]
>>2) Stanford faculty and students have created some of the most famous companies, such as....<<</p>
<p>If you are going to rate American universities based on the fame or success or wealth of the institutions its graduates founded, then Harvard will easily trump all. Because a bunch of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America were Harvard grads, including key leaders such as John Adams and Samuel Adams.</p>
<p>The trend continues from there up to and including Gates and Ballmer at Microsoft and Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook.</p>
<p>There are many fine universities in the US, and Stanford is among the very best. But Harvard has been leading the way for 370 years
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I don't find it a particularly strong argument to invoke Harvard's old age. After all, Harvard is almost 4 times as old as Stanford is, so Harvard will clearly have a longer list of distinguished graduates simply by virtue of age. Nobody is talking about taking a time machine and attending Harvard of the past. As a parallel example, Oxford probably has even more distinguished graduates than Harvard does, once again because of Oxford's sheer age. But that's not entirely relevant to whether you should go there today.</p>
<p>What people are getting at is what school you should go to TODAY, and are using, as a proxy, the rate of innovation and entrepreneurship that has happened at that school in recent history. And I think it is probably true that Stanford is a more innovative school than Harvard is, just like Silicon Valley is, frankly, a more innovative place than Boston is. Don't get me wrong. Boston is probably the 2nd most innovative place in the entire country, and arguably in the world. But Silicon Valley is the clear #1.</p>
<p>
[quote]
One can even argue that the more research results or more extra-curriculum activities like starting companies by the faculty members is a major NEGATIVE for the undergrad education
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I wouldn't go quite so far as to argue that it is actually a major 'negative', in the sense that a strong inverse relationship exists. I think what you mean to say is that the two are strongly uncorrelated, rather than actually being strongly (negatively) correlated. After all, there are plenty of unmotivated profs at the no-name schools. These are guys who do bad research AND bad teaching.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
As a matter of fact, last I checked, up to CS106, they're all taught by the lecturers.
[/QUOTE]
bostonc CS106 is the first CS class you take if you're majoring in CS so your point there is quite invalid. Also one of the people that teach CS106a (which is the one for very beginners) is Prof Eric Roberts a great CS professors. If you would like to do more research I would advise you look at the Stanford Bulletin (<a href="http://www.stanford.edu/dept/registrar/bulletin/bulletin06-07/pdf/0607_Bulletin.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.stanford.edu/dept/registrar/bulletin/bulletin06-07/pdf/0607_Bulletin.pdf</a>) and the undergrad cs website (<a href="http://cs.stanford.edu/degrees/undergrad/Thinking.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://cs.stanford.edu/degrees/undergrad/Thinking.shtml</a>)</p>
<p>Also to quote the CS website:
Majoring in computer science at Stanford provides many opportunities which make life extremely exciting. These include:
Undergraduates in CS have opportunities to get involved in research. With a faculty and resources that are among the strongest in the world, a great deal of leading-edge academic research has been, and continues to be, carried out at Stanford. If you show that you can do the work, you can get involved in this type of research as an undergraduate, which will provide you with extraordinarily valuable training for future work in the field.
Undergraduates in CS have opportunities to get involved in teaching. The discussion sections for the introductory CS106 courses are led primarily by undergraduates. As a section leader, you will have the chance to teach the next generation of CS majors and get them excited about programming. If you have done well in your CS courses and can demonstrate both an aptitude for and an interest in teaching, you should check out their website for more information.
The CS department is right in the middle of Silicon Valley. The department has excellent connections to local companies (many of which were founded by people connected with the department). These connections provide help in getting summer internships as well as permanent positions after graduation. </p>
<p>IMHO it does seem like Stanford cares about its cs undergrads!</p>