<p>They are both currently high school seniors. iCalculus is headed to Princeton and ksarmand is headed to Harvard.</p>
<p>…I’m a girl.</p>
<p>And for the second question, look at my location. 
(by the way, adults are sometimes college students if they are over 18; I, however, am not yet legal.)</p>
<p>I believe iCalculus has an XY genotype.</p>
<p>Edit: BOO, Jersey13! You suck. :(</p>
<p>iCalculus: It’s impossible to be a valedictorian from MIT since MIT doesn’t rank…</p>
<p>^I believe MIT ranks undergraduate students by quartiles. But yes, one cannot be (officially) named valedictorian.</p>
<p>[Attendance</a> and Degree Certifications: MIT Office of the Registrar](<a href=“Homepage | MIT Registrar”>Homepage | MIT Registrar)</p>
<p>I give up on this thread. Everyone takes what I say so literally.
MIT may not have a valedictorian, but that was not my point. My point was that the top students in each college are pretty much equal intellectually. BUT, to distinguish between them, you ask yourself which one would impress you the most. Although a Yale val and and MIT val (if it existed) have the same potential to achieve certain things, they ARE different, because they went through different undergraduate experiences.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Looking past the ad hominem and complete uselessness of that comment, did you (either of you, I guess) even think why I might have made that comment? Engineering, as a pre-professional discipline (I don’t know if Stanford does it differently and I’m not an engineer so I could be wrong), teaches students skills that they will continue to learn in the workforce. It probably does so very well and does so necessarily if engineering graduates are going to be able to work after they graduate. Nonetheless, those 4 years could be placed anywhere in an individual’s lifetime. </p>
<p>A philosophy major (my point is not exclusive to philosophy majors), is not a pre-professional major, and thus students spend four years learning how to approach life instead of learning trade skills. Surely you aren’t arguing that engineering is both better at that and at teaching students engineering. If so, I think you need to reevaluate exactly who is putting their discipline on a pedestal. </p>
<p>The meat of my argument is that taking those four years in life to gain what a philosophy major optimally gains from school as opposed to what an engineer optimally gains from school will make the next 30+ years of learning more productive to the point that the four years the philosophy major didn’t learn tangible skills are more than made up for. This is seen by the fact that engineers who go into business, in another case, end up making more money than undergraduate business majors in the long run. </p>
<p>Whether or not you agree that this happens with philosophy majors in engineering (I don’t know that they would ever be hired or admitted into a graduate program) you can’t argue that it’s not feasible and it’s certainly not the thought process of someone “■■■■■■■■”. I get that you’re high school students and this is just an online forum, but if you’re going to contribute to the discussion, actually contribute. </p>
<p>Not hatin’.</p>
<p>Edit: You aren’t both high school students. That was my bad.</p>
<p>Tyler,</p>
<p>That was quite an interesting post… I enjoyed your logic! (No, this is not sarcasm) I have never looked at it from that perspective. As an engineer, it has never crossed my mind. Though it does make sense to me, I just never considered it. So just out of curiosity, do you believe that an engineer could learn those “approach” to life skills? I believe that if a philosophy major were strong in the math/sciences he/she wouldn’t have much difficult in learning some of the “tricks and trades” of the profession, as most of what we learn as students isn’t put to much use. With that said, I do believe an intelligent, open-minded (in the sense that they do not think like the “typical” engineer) could just as well pick up on those approach skills aforementioned. Just some food for thought. I did enjoy your post, though.</p>
<p>-Thumper</p>
<p>“The majority of the people you WANT to encounter in life aren’t these humble, down to earth, diverse, unfortunate human beings.”</p>
<p>I’m sorry to open old wounds here, but I was surfing around (randomly, of course) and found this statement. I pity you, iCalculus… I chose Stanford over Harvard because the people at Stanford were genuine. I wish you the best, in your future life full of arrogant, snobby, self-righteous, over-confident ba*****s. I have chosen to grow and fraternize with people who want to make a difference for others, without "HYP"ing their own credentials.</p>
<p>You don’t need to pity me. Save your pity for someone who needs it. I pity that you tried so hard to rationalize your decision of Stanford over Harvard, and couldn’t see past the “arrogant, snobby self-righteous” stereotype of Harvard to realize that you were accepted to the one university that trumps all and is known by everyone in the entire world.</p>
<p>I didn’t choose Harvard NOT because I sensed its “arrogance, elitism.” Far from it, when I was making my college decision, I knew that Harvard was still the best, most recognized university among mankind. You don’t need to make yourself sound self righteous by putting a school down for its elitism. Because in the end, you’re still putting a school down.Saying that Harvard is full of elite pricks is the same as saying that Stanford is full of dumb californian surfers.</p>
<p>I was not putting down Harvard kids for being those things. With hindsight, it kind of looks like that. However, I never said that. The students at Harvard are incredibly intelligent, and (for the most part) nice and good people. One of the hardest things for me to give up was the idea of being “On Harvard Time”. This is because I went to their meeting at the Admit Weekend, and had a blast. They genuinely had a good time. However, no one seemed to have the same practical and “down-to-earth” approach to life that Stanford students have. </p>
<p>I was criticizing the very people “you want to meet.” If you don’t respect normal, everyday people, then you are going nowhere in life. That one statement of yours (about community college and state schools) was one of the most arrogant and boastful comments I have read. You seemed to be saying, “The students at the Ivies are higher and better than ‘them normal folk.’” You have a long way to go in life; I hope that you’ll learn to respect those humble people who actually make the world go round.</p>
<p>I read the first page of this (actually not even b/c I couldn’t stomach it) and I was sadly disheartened by the pettiness and anger so I’m sorry if someone has already said something along these lines but:</p>
<p>HEY EVERYBODY!!! HAKUNA MATATA!!! :)</p>
<p>Just a thought: if everyone would stop posting, this thread would sink into oblivion, where it belongs.</p>
<p>In math, natural science and biology, UCB appears superior to Stanford academically based on output and impact. In fact, UCB is probably the King of hard sciences. I wonder why UCB is regarded less than Stanford in undergraduate education.</p>
<p>A lot of insecure posters with a lot of time on their hands. Doesn’t anyone tour Europe anymore during their post-high school summer, volunteer in a soup kitchen, be a camp counselor, or wait tables??</p>
<p>Find a life outside of your braggadocio–my goodness, I was a grad and medical student at Harvard and a Stegner fellow at Stanford, and neither of you represent either school, well.</p>
<p>And, yes, UC Berkeley is the king of hard sciences and tremendous grade deflation. But is an exciting, vital campus, and for those who do well, there, it launches one anywhere one’s heart desires.</p>
<p>Go Calipso!</p>
<p>Stanford is good anyway</p>
<p>I was accepted to Stanford EA, but later on decided to attend Harvard this fall. Stanford is a beautiful and amazing school, but one of the major deciding factors against it (for me) was the way that people always seemed to equate it to “Heaven On Earth”-type college. I could find plenty of pros and cons about Harvard, and knew that Stanford must have some too but never could find one. When I foudn this thread, everytime someone complained about something, it seemed a bunch of people jumped up to prove them wrong, which made me a little uneasy. I guess the “ducks” analogy really shines through, and as a native Californian, I suppose that’s the way certain people perceive it as well (well, before the recession;p)–this gorgeous mecca where problems fade away, which just isnt true. Ah well, all these colleges are wonderful, but remember that no college is for everyone accepted–why do you think Harvard and Stanford have the highest yield in the country, but it only hovers around 75%?:)</p>
<p><<but what=“” do=“” i=“” know?=“” am=“” nothing=“” but=“” an=“” inexperienced=“” and=“” immature=“” pre-frosh=“” who=“” is=“” merely=“” expressing=“” (and=“” not=“” too=“” eloquently)=“” “unimaginative”=“” undue=“” love=“” loyalty=“” to=“” the=“” first=“” choice=“” school=“” of=“” my=“” dreams.=“” so=“” suffer=“” parental=“” ■■■■■■=“” lightly.=“”>>></but></p>
<p>To answer your question: clearly, not much. Why so easily antagonized by a dissenting opinion by a poster with an impressive CV??</p>
<p>The best thing college can do for you is to give you the chance to grow up. </p>
<p>Don’t know what “parental ■■■■■■” are, but are there student ■■■■■■?</p>
<p><<<your daughter,=“” (from=“” your=“” description)=“” a=“” future=“” nobel=“” laureate=“” and=“” fields=“” medalist=“” because=“” she=“” attended=“” the=“” stanford=“” “feeder=”" program"=“” that=“” is=“” hssc,=“” who=“” (in=“” “shyly=”" demurred"=“” manner)=“” rejected=“” overtures=“” of=“” no=“” less=“” than=“” two=“” professors,=“” applied=“” early=“” decision=“” to=“” tufts???=“” her=“” “first=”" choice"=“” school??=“” were=“” hypsm=“” not=“” “intellectual”=“” enough=“” for=“” her?=“”>>></your></p>
<p>Boy, Cardinalsinner, is this ever the battle cry of the provincial.</p>
<p>3 of the 6 kids who got into Stanford, from my son’s high school, are headed to Tufts. Two others are headed to Middlebury and Columbia. One will attend Stanford. </p>
<p>Are they exceptional students, yes! Part of the draw for them was Boston, the student body at Tufts (big emphasis on internationalism–all of the Tufts-bound have, minimally, three languages), and the academics, particularly, that Tufts is one of the few universities in the country where the undergraduates are exclusively professor-taught, save for the Experimental college. No TAs. Harvard et all cannot boast such a thing.</p>
<p>So, really, your ignorance is showing. My own son, who, based on his PSAT score and past cut-offs, may be a likely National Merit Scholarship Finalist. Like SW’s daughter, he is exceptional in and outside of school, and his coveted school is Tufts. Loved it, knows current students who love it, and feels at home, there.</p>
<p>Frankly, I admire the kids who can think out of the box and rankings and look to the more meaningful criteria of picking a school.</p>
<p>Good luck to you, Cardinalsinner, I wish you much-needed growth and generosity as you spend time on whatever campus. You have some insularity that is downright scary and hostile.</p>
<p>i posted but i dont know where it went, so i’m gona retype it.</p>
<p>^was that necessary?</p>
<p>people need to stop bashing each other on this thread and do what the thread was meant for: pointing out the negative aspects of life at stanford.</p>
<p>honestly, if you are not a current/former student, parent or a current/former student, or at least an admitted student, you probably don’t know enough about stanford to offer an accurate perspective, so please do not post.</p>
<p>
There are a lot of kids like that, 36% of those admits at Tufts actually will matriculate, included in this 36% are the ED admits who had Tufts as their “first choice”. Just wondering how many of those RD admits actually will matriculate? 10%? In this 10%, there were 3 admitted by Stanford. Good to know.</p>