Stanford vs Oregon academics

All on you wrote:

And Oregon's education program is ranked higher than schools like Berkeley, USC, and NorthWestern

So once again, it depends on your major

if you have to tell people how good your program is, you've already lost the battle...

my two cents wrote:

All on you wrote:

And Oregon's education program is ranked higher than schools like Berkeley, USC, and NorthWestern

So once again, it depends on your major

if you have to tell people how good your program is, you've already lost the battle...

No, I think that's the opposite of losing

All on you wrote:

It's even ranked higher than Stanford in some Law School programs

Specialty rankings for law school do not matter, whatsoever. So, no, Oregon is not a better law school than Stanford in any sense other than price. Pedigree matters enormously for law school graduates, which is both a joke and a reality. There may be good reasons to go to Oregon over Stanford (a poster above provided a worthwhile example) but academics is not one of them.

Stanford LAW....Oregon LAW...Oregon LAW....hmmm have a nice ring to it...lets see Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom and Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz defintly hire more Oregon law school grads then Stanford.

Wyoming 16-yee hah.

Slowdown90s wrote:

Stanford LAW....Oregon LAW...Oregon LAW....hmmm have a nice ring to it...lets see Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom and Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz defintly hire more Oregon law school grads then Stanford.

In fact, where you went to law school matters for getting a federal clerkship, perhaps, and for getting a job at a big-name firm like one of the above. I recall an article from some years ago that claimed a first-year associate at Skadden made about $14/hour.

In the actual practice of law, no one really cares where you went to law school.

I don't know. Compare Ryan Hall's tweets and blogs compared to Kenny Moore's writing and you wonder.

All on you wrote:

you are a joke wrote:

Also, to those saying that some major programs are stronger at Oregon than they are at Stanford, you are wrong. No undergrad program at Oregon is anywhere near any undergrad major at Stanford.

That is not true at all. I know off the top of my head that sports business/marketing majors are much better at Oregon. So you don't know what you're talking about

That would be because Stanford does not have a general business or marketing degree....

I know right... wrote:

All on you wrote:

That is not true at all. I know off the top of my head that sports business/marketing majors are much better at Oregon. So you don't know what you're talking about

That would be because Stanford does not have a general business or marketing degree....

Are you saying that sports marketing is a general degree? Sounds like a specific degree to me

I used to work in Chicago wrote:

All on you wrote:

It's even ranked higher than Stanford in some Law School programs

Specialty rankings for law school do not matter, whatsoever. So, no, Oregon is not a better law school than Stanford in any sense other than price. Pedigree matters enormously for law school graduates, which is both a joke and a reality. There may be good reasons to go to Oregon over Stanford (a poster above provided a worthwhile example) but academics is not one of them.

So why do people pay attention to rankings if they don't matter? Aren't the rankings the whole reason why most people think Stanford is a top school

It's hard to say. Vocational and L&S degrees are common at UO but top 10 schools started to offer equally as easy liberal arts degrees decades ago to satisfy recreation minded undergrads. For instance Cal has an L&S Computer Science degree sans much of the customary engineering core. The UO Math Dept is very highly regarded yet half the math courses given at UO are high school level by 'lecturers' and 'instructors' which the top 10s don't even offer. However you can 'walk on' at the UC System and enroll in any class without being officially admitted (space available & with instructor's approval) and then you can brag on your facebook page and rightfully call yourself a UCLA student ;-)

runner dunker wrote: If your family makes less than $100,000 per year, all tuition is covered.

This is false. Stanford likes to quote this statistic often, but it is not true. My family's income is about $90k, our property value is rated at $220k, and our assets are reflective of midwest/heartland/south middle class suburbia. My financial aid package at Stanford was comparable to Harvard's offer and much better than those from MIT, Brown, UChicago, and CalTech. Paying for a Stanford education was definitely doable, but not easy for my family by any means. State school would have been free, which was a HUGE incentive for many of my friends.

Whatever. I make ~$200k and I'm only in my mid-20's. I'd say I made the right decision.

Wwwas wrote:

I know right... wrote:

That would be because Stanford does not have a general business or marketing degree....

Are you saying that sports marketing is a general degree? Sounds like a specific degree to me

No, I missed the sports part of the previous posters statement. But my point still stands: Stanford does not have an undergrad program for business, marketing, or sports business/marketing. It is therefore disingenuous to claim that the undergrad programs at Oregon are far superior to the Stanford programs in this area... when said programs don't actually exist.

It's hard to correlate programs and compare. Top 10s often have more theoretical programs while normal schools have less theory and state schools and junior colleges have vocational topics. You can't always just make the statement one way or the other. A Top 10 school might say the MBA is what is needed and "why have a Sports Marketing that's for normal schools not a Top 10". But you often hear the same put down from Physics majors at the same Top 10 about Engineering programs "Engineering is 2 years of theory and two years of Vocational Training". So it's all relative you know. I mean an AA in IT from De Anza JC has Cisco and Microsoft courses. An L&S BA in CS at UC Berkeley has Java plus Calculus and no "vocational" Microsoft or Cisco. But a BS in CS at Cal adds Calculus Physics. Which one is the best is subjective. The starting salary for the BSCS may be higher but the AAIT might be alls you need moving into R&D from the factory floor.

UO - Sports marketing good, no engineering (last I checked)

Stanford: Engineering, no sports management (but the one Nike founder went here as well). Also known for grade inflation.

So at least at Stanford most students achieve good grades - deserving or not.

going fishing wrote:

UO - Sports marketing good, no engineering (last I checked)

Stanford: Engineering, no sports management (but the one Nike founder went here as well). Also known for grade inflation.

So at least at Stanford most students achieve good grades - deserving or not.

"Stanford... Also known for grade inflation." - Guy who didn't get into Stanford, 2012

lmao

Woops, no one told the President of Brazil about the great academics at University of Oregon - why in the world are they paying to send their best science students to a lousy school like Harvard when they could all get marketing degrees in Eugene?

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/04/president-of-brazil-comes-to-harvard/