<p>I've heard a lot that stanford's undergrad program is not very good. Apparently, it's grad school is amazing. Is this true? would schools like yale, duke, etc have better undergrad programs than their stanford counterparts?</p>
<p>Yeah, you’re right. The Stanford undergraduate school is not very good. You should not apply to Stanford. The students that apply each year have been misinformed. Almost any other school would be better.</p>
<p>And don’t believe US News and World Report. They don’t know what they are doing.</p>
<p>any other opinions?</p>
<p>It’s not just not very good, it’s actually pretty horrible, from you know, what I’ve heard. Do you know that they had graduate students teaching a 500 person lecture for econ?</p>
<p>I understand the need for sarcasm cardfan, but for what it’s worth…</p>
<p>If you want the most undergraduate focused experience, maybe it’s not ideal, but the programs are very good. If the graduate departments are highly regarded, it’s because the offerings of each department are of very high quality. You’ll find lots and lots of great courses and brilliant professors.</p>
<p>But yes, in the end the professors at any university like Harvard, Stanford, etc are chosen because they’re brilliant researchers, not that they’re the best at meeting undergraduates’ needs. The advantage of these schools, however, is that the student body is very accomplished, and you’ll find you learn a lot from accomplished peers. Further, these schools offer almost anything you’d ever want to be successful in terms of courses, research opportunities, faculty, etc. The quality of education is high, but those set out to teach you may have other things on their mind which are more important to them.</p>
<p>I think people at times ask if Harvard is really worth it. The answer is: the peers are going to teach you a lot, the faculty are brilliant, you get lots of wonderful offerings, but it’s up to you to take advantage of them, and there are more undergraduate-focused schools out there. There are also smaller schools out there. But keep in mind smaller schools may not have the breadth of offerings that a school like S or H does.</p>
<p>I had similar doubts about Stanford while trying to decide where to enroll, so I emailed two Stanford students I knew and talked to a bunch more during Admit weekend. They were all satisfied with the amount of attention that Stanford gave to undergrads. Ultimately I chose Stanford.</p>
<p>I suggest you ask some Stanford students or ask admissions if there’s a professor you can talk to; they’re most likely to give a reliable, honest answer to your question. But don’t worry if you don’t get any answers now - you can ask around after you get in.</p>
<p>If you are looking for very personal attention by your profs, LACs are a better choice.</p>
<p>Among the top research Us, Stanford and Princeton are the two with relatively more focus on undergrads.</p>
<p>actually, an excellent grad program helps out with having a good undergrad program, because undergrads get to experience the amazing research being done by the grad students.</p>
<p>hmmm. ok. thanks for the opinions guys! more are welcome:)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This a little in some fields of study, perhaps, but more importantly graduate students can be very good to talk to about their own experiences. I will say that at times the fact that there are top faculty and grad students can have more bearing on getting letters of recommendation and things like that than on one’s actual learning process. It is unlikely in many fields that an undergraduate would be at the level to appreciate faculty’s and/or graduate students’ level of work, especially in a top program where the graduate students are likely to be at a pretty lofty level.</p>
<p>One must be content to observe in awe at the sidelines, and work hard towards getting to that level someday, usually. Some would say, why not attend a smaller school instead, where professors specifically are out to help undergraduates? But for the reasons I mentioned in my last post, there really are benefits to both sides, making it a matter of personal taste.</p>
<p>Everything mathboy has said is spot-on, great advice.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you want a school that is highly focused on teaching and the undergraduate experience, don’t go to Stanford, and don’t go to any of the other major research universities either. Go to a LAC. </p>
<p>However, a major research university has advantages of branding, extensive career recruiting, and a breadth of academic resources. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I would consider such benefits to be marginal at best, for, let’s face it, most undergrads don’t care about research. They’re not going to join academia. They just want to get a decent job, or want to go to a professional grad school (i.e. law, business, medicine) to then get a decent job.</p>
<p>Good to see you around again Sakky. </p>
<p>And Sakky does make a good addition to my bit of skepticism at the relevance of this amazing research thing – indeed, only a very few undergrads are going to care enough about the lofty levels of the grad students and professors. Their goals in life are different. Even those who would love to mingle with the brilliant faculty can only do so much, as these faculty are masters – not a good chance one will be at the level to truly appreciate why they are masters until much more study is done.</p>
<p>EDIT: I can’t emphasize enough, you should find out what your peers and the environment you’ll be in are like. We can spell out the fundamental differences between a top research university and an LAC easily here, but an ultimately huge factor in picking is the student body.</p>
<p>For instance, Caltech and Stanford are two wonderful research universities; both have great faculty, and neither is the most teaching-focused place in the US – professors are probably mainly hired to be great researchers, not to mentor undergraduates (little less sure about Caltech, but I think this is a huge point distinguishing Caltech as a small math/sci/engineering school from some others). A poster in the Caltech threads has many times given the example of having loved Stanford’s program for his major, yet preferring the very different environment and student body of Caltech, and also loving the program they have for his major. He’s a Caltech student now.</p>
<p>sakky and mathboy98,</p>
<p>actually, i am very interested in the “lofty levels of the grad students and professors”. I plan to do a ton of research as an undergrad. in fact, I am planning to go into academia. I’m probably the exception, but still I doubt all the typical Stanford student cares about is getting a job. If they weren’t at least a little bit dreamer/idealist they never would have stood out enough to be accepted. changing the world is important, too, not just getting a job.</p>
<p>nglosh, you certainly are the exception if you’re very sure about going into academia, (I’m considering it, but then again I’m considering the whole gamut from: elite engineering job like google, industry researcher like Bell labs, tech consulting, finance, entrepreneur, hell even patent law, all in addition to academia) Since there are just so many options and opportunities at Stanford, very few of my peers are like I’m 100% sure I want to do xyz for a living (other than premeds). Therefore you don’t get that “all Stanford students care about are getting good jobs” vibe until perhaps senior year lol.</p>
<p>To clear things up for any who misunderstood my question as arrogance. I know Stanford has a good undergrad program, but what I meant to ask was how is it compared to others. I should have worded my question differently. I meant to ask, what is the stanford undergrad program like compared to other schools? I’m sorry if I came off as arrogant, but that was unintentional.</p>
<p>What are you looking for in a school?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First off, yes ngolsh you are the exception, as am I where I come from, because I am attracted to a research/academic career too, so my advice was particularly well-directed to your case (Sakky’s suggestion that most undergraduates aren’t headed for a research career is right on, but doesn’t apply to students like you and me). My point was different, however. It’s not that most students don’t care about anything but getting a job – they probably want a high quality education and to do interesting things with their time at school – that just needn’t have as much to do with those lofty levels. </p>
<p>To address students like you who’re interested in a research career, depending on what field you’re going into ngolsh, you’ll find that you simply cannot function at the level to really appreciate the loftiness of top faculty’s work as an undergraduate. You may be intelligent, but functioning at that level requires dedication and time to mature as well – take it from an upperclassman who’s had the same goal (in terms of academics) as you’ve had through his undergraduate years. The intelligence is just a prerequisite to being able to go through and understand extremely complex material to rise to the level you need to get to. I would keep this in mind if I were you, or you’ll get very frustrated very quickly. Enjoy every moment of your study, even if it’s not at the most mind-blowing levels yet, because it’s all important, and all meant to be beautiful in its own way. </p>
<p>Snowy, your original post wasn’t quite arrogant, but I do have to say that asking whether a student is good or not compared to others isn’t the best question to ask, most importantly when talking about a highly sought after school. You should be asking whether or not the given school is a good fit for you.</p>
<p>ngolsh314, I am 100% with you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Where are you getting your information?</p>