2003: can anyone touch Stanford?

trackhead wrote:

It doesn't matter what college you go to. Put in four years, come out with a degree, and Stanford is just as good as any other university. It matters more that four years were put in ans not where.

wrong. keep kidding yourself.

Michelle Branch fan,

What a great point. I was about the say the same thing, but you beat me to it.

You never know how a team comes together or falls apart in a year's time. It would seem that Stanford has a very good chance or repeating, but like you said, go back to last year and it would appear that Colorado had a great chance too.

Knower wrote:

Stanford is without question one of the top 3 schools in the country, and it could be argued that it is simply THE best.

bold claim. top 10 yes. depends on what you program you are in. you are obviously a little biased. come to the east coast and i can find you at least 3 schools in a given academic field that are better than stanford. but that's not to take anything away from it, it is a great school.

Stanford is a very good school. Tons of resources, beautiful atmosphere, I used to live in Palo Alto, and I love the area.

But why the need to go there?

Is the MBA cirriculum at MSU inferior to that of Stanford?

Why do people care about making so much money? Why do people need huge salaries? To further what? So they can buy stuff to make themselves feel better about their life? I don't see the point in planning your life around making huge sums of money.

So what if I go to the run of the mill university, and I work for someone that went to Stanford? Are they better than me?

So many kids get it into their that if they don't get into Stanford or Harvard or whatever University of Mars they have in mind that they will never achieve what they want. It's a really sad situation. How much of the whole Stanford-mantra has to do with getting rich? When kids think Stanford or Harvard, I'll bet big time that they're thinking about big bucks and not about learning anything.

That's why it doesn't matter to me. It's just a name.

My 2001 Wall Street analyst class conisted of recent graduates from the following schools. If you still think that an education from just any school is good enough, then you are simply kidding yourself.

Vanderbilt University

UCLA

UVA

NYU

MIT

Wake Forest University

Georgetown University

Carnegie Mellon Univesity

Emory University

Duke University

UC-Berkeley

Stanford University

Northwestern University

UNC - Chapel Hill

Washington University

nope wrote:

wrong. keep kidding yourself.

Again, less than 16% of Americans have a college degree in anything from anywhere. Consequently, if you get a college degree in anything from anywhere, you're already in the top 15.5% of the American workforce.

How am I kidding myself? Are the textbooks they use at Stanford better than those from Florida State? Are the professors at Sacramento State uneducated and ignorant of facts and teaching ability with respect to professors from Stanford?

Trackhead,

You are right. Money does not matter, that is not my motivation, but unfortunately it is for many. I personally can't stand certain business types. But I want to do high quality work and end up being one of the tops in my field and that is simply very difficult to accomplish if you do not go to one of the top universities, whether it be undergrad or grad, though not impossible. The question is do you want to settle in a job where you are not doing exactly what you want because your background does not allow you to go higher? Either way, happiness is the important thing.

trackhead wrote:

How am I kidding myself? Are the textbooks they use at Stanford better than those from Florida State? Are the professors at Sacramento State uneducated and ignorant of facts and teaching ability with respect to professors from Stanford?

No, but the research capabilties and reputation are. Also, the professors that you work with are probably more well known and versed in their respective fields. Now, I know that one could go to Florida State, work hard, graduate with a 4.0, and go off to a good grad program and end up accomplishing great things, but the environment, rigor, and reputations of top schools gives an advantage.

In my original post I did not to mean to be condescending, so I take that back.

Nope,

I very much appreciate your reply.

Second, I think that there is a very limited amount of fields which require a Stanford-esque degree. I think that those are very specialized fields and big univeristies, with big resources, are the way to go.

But that's not what I want. I want to be very good at what I do, and as someone posted earlier, that is an extension of my desire to the absoulte best I can in running.

My overall point is that the vast majority of Americans have no college degree at all. Far more important to someone entering the workforce is whether or not they have a degree, and not where they got it (w/ a few exceptions).

Trackhead - kids go to schools like Stanford because they wish to be at the top of a specialized field. Maybe big bucks are important to them. It's not for others to judge.

If you want a good job in a non specialized field then stick to your any school will do theory.

The topic at hand: Stanford's chances of repeating in XC are excellent, better than Colorado's in 2002. They're eight to ten guys deep so if one goes down they will be able to replace him with someonme who is likely just nine places back.

This season Colorado had four big guns and counted on someone else to break through. Once Ritz got hurt (before the start of the season), the majority of the CU hype vanished. Slattery = mono and you have two out of four. It's likely to be a dual meet between Wisconsin and Stanford at 2003 XC NCAAs, unless Arkansas reloads with some unreal talent.

There is no question academically that Stanford is one of the top three schools in the country, while the abundance of culture is phenomenally rich all over the Bay Area. If someone has a shot to get in they are foolhardy to pass up considering it at least. The only rub is the *PERCEPTION* that there is not much humility present. Some Stanford grads are perceived by others as coming across as arrogant or elitist--us vs. them types. Maybe they're jealous, maybe their is a grain of truth to it...or both.

You need a certain (very high) amount of talent, privilege and luck, and all of your ducks in a row to get into Stanford, i.e., 4.0 GPA, 1580 SAT score, extracurricular, etc. Getting in is clearing the high bar--not too many folks flunk out. IMHO there have to be a limited few bumps in the road prior to applying to Stanford in order to get in. Sometimes it's just a matter of circumstances, while in other cases some folks aren't sharp enough to warrant consideration at Stanford.

Still, if someone equally gifted has the disadvantage of (for example) a not-so-great childhood and is forced to expend energy dealing with instability in their family, i.e., health problems, welfare issues, struggling with identity crises' and what-not, rather than pulling A's, this individual might end up distracted or torn in their youth, becoming too late of a bloomer to overcome their problems in time to swing getting into Stanford at 18. They might not even feel comfortable there among the affluent. Whereas that someone might pull their life together in their college of choice and move on to a professional career equal to that of a Stanford grad.

So enjoy and make the most out of your collegiate experience wherever you go. In ten years, it's not where you start out, it's where you end up.

And congrats to the Cardinal on a great run at NCAAs.

One Keg,

Most of the students at Stanford do not come from affluent backgrounds. Most of them are from middle class and even lower middle class backgrounds and received serious scholarship money to go there which made it very affordable. Stanford is interested in only the best students, and they get them regardless of their ability to pay. Stanford has one of the highest endowments of any university in the world and could basically offer an education for free if it wanted to. So, instead, they charge students to go there, bank it, offer as many scholarships as it can, collect money from alumni, and go from there.

Affluent students are there for sure, but they are in the great minority.

Spare any change? j/k ;-)

Thanks for the thought-out reply. I'd be interested in seeing the economic demographics of Stanford students/graduates compared to other institutions.

I've always maintained that a Stanford student's median income is higher than the average college student. If you're right it looks like I just ate one.

The money example was not to say that money was the main goal but rather that it is the reward. You are paid what you are worth. If a Stanford graduate makes more money, then that is because he is valued more as a result of that Stanford education.

Not everyone can reach the upper eschelon in their chosen field. There can only be so many managers and leaders. Those managers and leaders go to Stanford, and other top notch schools and not Run of the Mill University. If you think otherwise then you have not been in the corporate world.

"You need a certain (very high) amount of talent, privilege and luck, and all of your ducks in a row to get into Stanford, i.e., 4.0 GPA, 1580 SAT score, extracurricular, etc. Getting in is clearing the high bar--not too many folks flunk out. IMHO there have to be a limited few bumps in the road prior to applying to Stanford in order to get in. Sometimes it's just a matter of circumstances, while in other cases some folks aren't sharp enough to warrant consideration at Stanford."

Wasn't there a story a few years back where the profs didn't give anything lower than a "B" because the "highly motivated, talented student body" didn't warrant giving less than a "B?"

trackhead. i want to make billions (not millions, billions), so i can give billions to charity and help starving people. good enough for you? what's your goal in life again, running fast?and what's all this crap about specialization? graduates from top schools get better jobs (IN GENERAL) right out of college than those from other colleges.

trackhead wrote:

Nope,

I very much appreciate your reply.

Second, I think that there is a very limited amount of fields which require a Stanford-esque degree. I think that those are very specialized fields and big univeristies, with big resources, are the way to go.

But that's not what I want. I want to be very good at what I do, and as someone posted earlier, that is an extension of my desire to the absoulte best I can in running.

My overall point is that the vast majority of Americans have no college degree at all. Far more important to someone entering the workforce is whether or not they have a degree, and not where they got it (w/ a few exceptions).

All praise the elite ruling class... thank you.. thank you..

robin masters wrote:

trackhead. i want to make billions (not millions, billions), so i can give billions to charity and help starving people. good enough for you? what's your goal in life again, running fast?

and what's all this crap about specialization? graduates from top schools get better jobs (IN GENERAL) right out of college than those from other colleges.

What's a 'better job'?