<p>I was only responding to the phuriku’s post about only a certain segment of society which believes Stanford is a better school. Quite a disgusting piece of snobbery. You can post all the BS rankings that you want. Stanford is the school of the future in higher education. Stanford dominates in STEM and, frankily, in the humanities. The university has a sane balance of academic excellence and vibrant student life. Stanford was the main catalyst for the development of an entirely new economy. No US university has had so much impact on society and economic development in such a short time as Stanford. Stanford raises more money than any other university, because people have confidence the quality of its programs and faculty… Other than Harvard, there is not one US university with the breadth of academic offerings, research capabilities and public impact as Stanford. The university produces a balance of scholars, entrepreneurs, athletes, public servants, writers, etc. My comment on the economics profession still stands. Economists often base their theories and research findings on their political beliefs. They cannot predict the future or the effectiveness of any policies with any accuracy–they seem to be able to only track what has happened in the past, and still disagree on causes of recessions, inflation, etc. Sure, many top univerisities have an economics faculty, but I find economics a waste of resources compared to medicine, engineering, law, public health, and other STEM departments.</p>
<p>Given that Stanford comes out on top of Chicago in all those rankings, it would actually hurt your argument to declare them BS. Then again, your claim is that Stanford is on a “whole other league”, so I can see how you wouldn’t agree with them seeing as very few have it as number one. It seems like the only ranking that would please you would be one that creates a “Stanford/Harvard” tier, makes it clear that no other institution comes close to touching them, and then ranks everybody else for the sake of the plebeians that don’t get into these schools. </p>
<p>In all seriousness, I concede that Stanford is a more “complete” and well rounded university. I don’t think anybody here is arguing that UChicago offers more programs or that, overall, its programs are ranked as highly as Stanford’s. I’m just an undergrad at a single college, but my perception, based on rankings and such, is that Stanford indeed is a superior institution, if you define such as one that offers more programs and said programs rank higher. However, as JHS so eloquently explained, in this particular race UChicago’s undergraduate college was deemed to be on equal footing as Stanford’s in terms of academic quality. You can rant all you want about the rankings that take into account all of the universities’ programs, but at least on this measure, it wouldn’t be heresy to say that UChicago offers a comparable education. It also wouldn’t be heresy to say that UChicago IS distinguished in the Physical Sciences, long established as one of the university’s strengths. You might have some valid points when it comes to comparing them as a whole, but to be frank your claims that UChicago is not distinguished in the Physical Sciences and your attempts to discredit the discipline it’s arguably most well known for make you look like little more than somebody who is lashing out irrationally.</p>
<p>If you take a look at pay scale data, people will believe Stanford should have an edge.
<a href=“Mismatched Rankings - Graphic - NYTimes.com”>Mismatched Rankings - Graphic - NYTimes.com;
College should not be a place only for its reputation, not for its outcome.
Among those top ten USNEWS colleges, only four institutions match their pay scale status. Harvard, Princeton, Stanford and CalTech.</p>
<p>Past results do not necessarily reflect future earnings.<br>
I believe that the significant change in college acceptances since 2007 will reflect a significantly different future for university graduates. Only time will tell, of course. </p>
<p>Students with high student debt in the 80s and 90s moved toward careers in investment banking, etc, in order to pay off their student loans. Now, with so much free money, especially to the very low income bracket range, those graduates do not have to choose a profession based on whether or not he will be able to pay off a student loan. He can choose work that has ‘good enough’ pay… yet, a job he enjoys. </p>
<p>Will the future Harvard grads still zip on over to Wall Street or choose lower paying, yet satisfying, work?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Work that fuels the economic engine is not satisfying? Don’t you want the brightest minds managing your retirement funds? :)</p>