UG Education Stanford Vs Harvard which is worse?

College Search & Selection
1

<p>As far as Grade Inflation, I know Stanford is worse.</p>

<p>But Quality of UG Education, Harvard is pretty bad.</p>

<p>Fm SR</p>

<br>


<br>

2

<p>Quote</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>This is a brief and incomplete list of indictments, which I feel do not begin to describe the misery of an undergraduate education at Harvard. With no meaningful institutional support for study abroad, post-graduate jobs or further schooling, or even mental well-being (see articles below), undergraduates are left to wallow in a hell of self-doubt, faithlessness, and insecurity. Administrators like to suggest this is all a hell of students' own making.</p>

3

<p>lol stanfordalum ....ur bs cracks me up.......****ty state schools hahaha....trust ME, u dont go to Stanford or Harvard..never have and never will cause ur too stupid, and then u trash them</p>

4

<p>Stanfordalum, I do not like Harvard or Stanford anymore than the next guy. In fact, I am very open about the fact that universities in general do not impress me. But let us be honest, Harvard and Stanford are two of the top 4 or 5 universities in the country. No matter how bad some aspects of those two practically perfect universities are, other universities do not come close. As far as state universities go, Cal, Michigan, UVA and UCLA are excellent, but they cannot compete. They competre nicely with schools like Columbia or Duke or Northwestern, but no way can they be compared to Stanford or Harvard...not yet anyway.</p>

5

<p>"Harvard and Stanford are two of the top 4 or 5 universities in the country."</p>

<p>For UNDERGRADUATE education? Hmmm.</p>

<p>Likely YES for things like -- innate intelligence and accomplishment of their undergraduate student body (these schools pretty much get anyone they want); "wow" value of their faculty; virtually unlimited funding; generalized reputation and overall prestige.</p>

<p>Likely NO for things like -- quality teaching by teaching oriented faculty; lack of competition for available resources with graduate students; quality advising for pre-professionals and for those traveling down paths toward grad school.</p>

<p>H and S are obviously strong, powerful schools -- for undergraduate work and perhaps most especially for graduate work. But to claim that they are 2 of the top 4 or 5 in the country for UNDERGRADUATE work demonstrates that the person so claiming values certain characteristics over certain other characteristics. While H and S will likely always occupy these slots in popular rankings, I think many people would STRONGLY disagree.</p>

6

<p>Dude, I agree that there are two types of university. LACs and Research universities. They occupy different dimensions. So allow me to rephrase, Stanford and Harvard are two of the top four or five research universities.</p>

7

<p>Research universities versus LAC's is the obvious distinction, but I think it runs much deeper than that. There are research universities and then there are RESEARCH universities. There are research universities with lots of superstar names and researchers and then there are research universities with lots of decent names, research, but superstar level of instruction. There are research universities where undergraduates are almost an afterthought ... where they have to fight for any attention at all ... and there are other research universities where through either a small graduate population or a different philosophy, undergraduates are front and center in the whole teaching/research continuum.</p>

<p>Clearly, H and S, measured as an entire university, are 2 of the top whatever (3, 5, definitely 10) universities in not only the country, but the world. But, I think many might argue that they are NOT 2 of the top 4 to 5 research universities for UNDERGRADUATES. And before anybody talks about the so-called Revealed Preferences Ranking (which many think is inherently and substantially flawed), keep in mind that many, many truly qualified people don't even apply to H and S at all for UNDERGRADUATE work because they believe these schools are places for graduate school, NOT undergraduate study . . . I can easily think of 10-12 kids I know ... superstar bright kids ... who are at other Ivies (Princeton, Dartmouth, Brown, Cornell, Penn, etc.), other top research unis, the top LAC's ... but simply never considered applying to H or S for UNDERGRADUATE study because H and S didn't offer what they wanted as the optimal place for an undergrad (despite what some would say, there are many UNBELIEVABLY ATTRACTIVE alternatives to H and S for undergraduate study).</p>

8

<p>"Inferior grad schools?" On the WSJ list of feeders into top professional schools, Harvard is #1 and Stanford #4.</p>

9

<p>Bland jobs? My Harvard classmates lead some of the country's most interesting businesses of all sizes, preside over some of the non profit agancies making a real difference in the world, have been cabinet members and diplomats, labor negotiators at important points in history, not to mention some of the most successful lawyers, teachers, think tank brains...........Trust me, no Harvard reunion turns up too many bland people.</p>

10

<p>StanfordAlum82 seems to be very against private institutions. I don't know why? Some radical hating the rich/wealthy perhaps?</p>

11

<p>Dude, you are preaching to the choir. There are many fine universities that offer equal opportunities to Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Stanford and Yale. Schools like the remaining 5 Ivies. Schools like CalTech, Chicago, Duke, Johns Hopkins and Northwestern. Schools like Cal-Berkeley, Michigan-Ann Arbor, UCLA, UNC-Chapel Hill, UVA and Wisconsin-Madison. Schools like Emory, Georgetown, Rice, Vanderbilt and WUSL. Schools like Amherst, Bowdoin, Carleton, Davidson, Grinnell, Haverford, Middlebury, Pomona, Swarthmore, Wesleyan and Williams. And the list goes on and on. </p>

<p>But, I was not referring to the quality of education. That really cannot be measured anyway. I was actually referring to the quality of the universities in their totality. If you look at the entire insitution, which is meaningless to the individual person I grant you, I believe that Harvard and Stanford are among the top 5 universities in the US.</p>

12

<p>~Alexandre~</p>

<p>Thanks for your reply. I try not to "preach" at all, but if I did, I am aware that we're basically in agreement. The gist of my post was to get some people to stop this misplaced reliance and emphasis on a generalized sense of "top" or "best." Perhaps there can be some consensus of "top" or "best" in some broad, holistic, total university way; and perhaps not. But, whatever the answer to that, does it have anything more than passing relevance (incremental prestige value? fodder for discussion?) to the individual applicant. Whether it's measureable or not, QUALITY of the undergraduate experience is extremely important and it behooves any applicant to get the best handle on it that they possibly can. If someone IS an undergraduate ... then the matter of MOST importance is where THAT undergraduate can receive the "top" or "best" UNDERGRADUATE education, for THAT undergraduates skills, abilities, interests, and preferred learning "style." So many people STOP their analysis at broadly generalized determinations of "top" or "best" as if it were one-size-fits-all, or objectively determined like a football poll (which is the furthest thing from objectivity also).</p>

<p>P.S. --> Oops. Shouldn't have mentioned football to a Wolverine this time of year! Sorry. :) Couldn't resist Alexandre. By the way, I personally love virtually everything about U of M -- way back in 1976, I was supposed to have been starting there in August ... in July we encountered some family emergencies which required keeping better tabs on finances and keeping me closer to home ... so I withdrew at U of M and my counselor convinced my home state U of I (Urbana) to reopen its offer (loved my experience at Illinois by the way) ... the price difference at the time ... for everything ... was about 3K for Illinois and the astronomical figure of about 7K for Michigan. Times have certainly changed.</p>

13

<p>Dude, Illinois is an awesome university. I would not recommend Michigan to an Illinois resident if she/he got into UIUC unless they are filthy rich or unless they got some scholarship money from Michigan. I personally consider Illinois to be one of the top 7 or 8 state universities and top 25 or 30 universities in the nation. Fiske, whom I respect most among college analysts, gives Illinois a ***** (his highest) academic rating. </p>

<p>Although I found Urbana Champaign a little too rural for my taste, my friends who went there loved it. I guess campus life at UIUC is truly fun. </p>

<p>In the sciences and Engineering, not only is UIUC better than Michigan, it is #1 in the Midwest and top 5 or 6 in the nation. It is also very strong in the social sciences and humanities...particularly so in Psychology.</p>

14

<p>Alexandre, I agree -- Illinois is an excellent academic university (especially in some areas -- Engineering, computer science, chemistry, accounting, psychology, agriculture among others). It's also a great place to go to school for most, although the heavy Greek scene and the rural location (you don't see it once you get to the school, but, you certainly do smell it) are not for everyone. Not that Michigan needs any help from me, but let me add something about Michigan for those that might not know it well. It's well known by almost all that Michigan is a great school for academics. But many think Michigan is too big, too impersonal ... these people seem to focus on the crowds at the "Big House" on game day. Sure, some people simply don't want a large school ... never ... no way, no how. But for those who can see value in attending a large school ... or are sitting on the fence ... I don't believe that ANY school DOES BIG as well as Michigan does. At Michigan you get all of the advantages of big (varieties of people, incredibly breadth and depth of course offerings, amazing alumni network, etc.) and virtually none of the disadvantages. They take great pains to make BIG feel smaller, complete with housing, advising, and other infrastructure to make BIG really work. And then there is the "college town." For me, Michigan's campus and "college town" is simply the best -- music, art, bars, food, coffee houses, quirky, chains -- everything is there and the balance is wonderful. I'd send any of my kids to Michigan in a heartbeat if they felt it was the school for them.</p>

15

<p>Stanford and Harvard are pretty much the same.</p>

16

<p>Sranford and Harvard are also impossibly hard to get into. Why isn't anyone mentioning THAT as a negative characteristic. Why should a school be considered so great if nobody normal can possibly get in? </p>

<p>Also, if they accept only the best of the best of the best, then is it such a huge accomplishment that they have the best grad school placement rates and that their alumni are all so rich and powerful?</p>

<p>I think the measure of a good school is how well it educates a person. Anyone can educate a genius and make him come out a genius. But what schools can educate a mediocre person and make him come out measureably improved? I think the answer to that question are the community colleges. They take high school dropouts and turn them into productive members of society. In the end, they can improve a student way more than superstars like Stanford and Harvard can. </p>

<p>Public schools like Berkeley, Michigan, UVA, etc are a waste of taxpayer money compared to the community colleges. They don't do anything except try to copy the educational models of Stanford and Harvard (which they don't do NEARLY as well). Leave the big universities to the private sector and distribute more money to the school that matter (elementary school, high schools, community colleges).</p>

17

<p>GUTRADE, Michigan is about 70 years older than Stanford. In 1890, when Stanford was founded, Michigan was already one of the country's top 5 universities. </p>

<p>And I doubt Michigan imitates anybody. In fact, it is often said that Michigan is the mother of all universities. Michigan has been shaping university education longer than anybody save the University of Pennsylvania.</p>

<p>Finally, Michigan gets a mere $300 million from Tax payers annually and Michigan's annual budget is $4.2 Billion. In other words, only 8% of Michigan's revenues come from Tax payers. I doubt Michigan would hurt if it decided to part ways with the Tax payers...byt the tax payers would hurt a great deal. Those tax payers are getting a top 10 university education at one third the price.</p>

18

<p>Alexandre, you will never want of a job. In the worst of times you will have a spot waiting for you in U/Michigan's External Relations department.</p>

19

<p>Gutrade; echoing Alexadre's thoughts -- the taxpayers of California contribute approx. $3bn out of a $14bn budget to the UC system. I can assure you that no UC, particularly Cal, is trying to copy that junior university down on the farm. One could argue, however, that Stanford, by changing its nickname to Cardinal (the color), it trying to emulate H (with its Crimson color). LOL</p>

<p>But, your point is well taken about the fine work done by cc's.</p>

20

<p>I can't speak for the rest of the country, but I think the California community colleges are as strong as they are <em>because</em> of the UC system (and Cal state system), which provides a way for those kids to transfer and get a real degree. Community colleges themselves can only educate you so much. So any dollar going to UCLA is indirectly also going to community colleges.</p>