Tougher entrance at Stanford but they refuse to fail any students so Oregon may actually be a tougher school to get a degree from.
Tougher entrance at Stanford but they refuse to fail any students so Oregon may actually be a tougher school to get a degree from.
Obviously I went to Uinv. Of Oregon..
Stanford has been totally infested with the libs...... Soon will be a NO GO Sharia law area totally taken over by ISIS. Already VERY unsafe for whites to travel (see Brock Turner witch hunt).
I would absolutely say UO has better academics. At least they will teach you a useful trade (like welding) instead of the gendered (sexist) studies at Stanford.
I was a poor student on scholarship at the only other top 10 USNWR school which gives athletic scholarships.
The problem with the Stanford type of schools from a poor student's perspective is that what they really train you for is more school. If one applies themselves at these schools, well, they prepare very, very well for competitive graduate and professional schools. This makes sense because the virtue of these places is that while the content is the same as most other universities, learning how to comfortably compete with very intelligent, competitive people makes a difference. I was surprised at how relatively easy my equally ranked graduate school was for me - maybe in part it was due to the fact that I was only taking courses and learning subject matter I liked - but there is little doubt that as with intense athletic training, the intense undergrad experience helped (my honors undergrad mentor made it clear that learning was merely an exercise in how much ego damage I was willing to absorb).
Today, I question the value of these prestige schools. Their tuition has significantly outpaced inflation, and going to school to go to more school makes little economic sense for many. (I paid for undergrad with an athletic scholarship, and go tthrough graduate school with no debt mostly on the backs of futures trading, a trade I picked up in the three years between undergrad and grad - realistically - who in the heck can possibly do that today?).
Value and practical factors matter more than anything today. It is a difficult sell to many parents and students seeking prestige. But one can do well from any state flagship university, especially given their typically wide choice of majors.
JoeRoganSuperFan wrote:
Stanford has been totally infested with the libs...... Soon will be a NO GO Sharia law area totally taken over by ISIS. Already VERY unsafe for whites to travel (see Brock Turner witch hunt)..
Which is why Aaron Persky was recalled...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/06/06/judge-aaron-persky-who-gave-brock-turners-lenient-sentence-sanford-rape-case-recalled/674551002/Sammy the cow wrote:
Stanford seems to have a better athletic program but Oregon seems to have the edge in acaxemics.
You realize you answered your own question in your comment (albeit with a typo, which raises questions)?
6/10
it is a matter of fit wrote:
I was a poor student on scholarship at the only other top 10 USNWR school which gives athletic scholarships.
The problem with the Stanford type of schools from a poor student's perspective is that what they really train you for is more school. If one applies themselves at these schools, well, they prepare very, very well for competitive graduate and professional schools. This makes sense because the virtue of these places is that while the content is the same as most other universities, learning how to comfortably compete with very intelligent, competitive people makes a difference. I was surprised at how relatively easy my equally ranked graduate school was for me - maybe in part it was due to the fact that I was only taking courses and learning subject matter I liked - but there is little doubt that as with intense athletic training, the intense undergrad experience helped (my honors undergrad mentor made it clear that learning was merely an exercise in how much ego damage I was willing to absorb).
Today, I question the value of these prestige schools. Their tuition has significantly outpaced inflation, and going to school to go to more school makes little economic sense for many. (I paid for undergrad with an athletic scholarship, and go tthrough graduate school with no debt mostly on the backs of futures trading, a trade I picked up in the three years between undergrad and grad - realistically - who in the heck can possibly do that today?).
Value and practical factors matter more than anything today. It is a difficult sell to many parents and students seeking prestige. But one can do well from any state flagship university, especially given their typically wide choice of majors.
I agree that, for most, a prestigious undergraduate education is not worth it. However, many types of graduate programs are definitely worth it, and their expense is vastly overblown.
Masters from a well-regarded university, especially in engineering or computer science: Only two years, tuition subsidized by greater earning potential.
MD/DO: Tuition subsidized my insane earning potential. Extremely low risk once you are accepted to a program in the US.
PhD: Any PhD program worth its weight in salt has a tuition waiver+stipend. If you are paying for your PhD, you are not in a real PhD program. Get out immediately. Most people do not stay in academia, but have greater earning potential in industry. Plus, you get 5-6 years of protected research time to work on a topic you are interested in.
JoeRoganSuperFan wrote:
Stanford has been totally infested with the libs...... Soon will be a NO GO Sharia law area totally taken over by ISIS. Already VERY unsafe for whites to travel (see Brock Turner witch hunt).
I would absolutely say UO has better academics. At least they will teach you a useful trade (like welding) instead of the gendered (sexist) studies at Stanford.
Is that true? I don't know. It seems like it's totally infested with GRINDERS. I'm not so sure there are so many ultra libs in their STEM departments. Mutually exclusive for the most part, although there are for sure exceptions.
MidBest wrote:
it is a matter of fit wrote:
I was a poor student on scholarship at the only other top 10 USNWR school which gives athletic scholarships.
The problem with the Stanford type of schools from a poor student's perspective is that what they really train you for is more school. If one applies themselves at these schools, well, they prepare very, very well for competitive graduate and professional schools. This makes sense because the virtue of these places is that while the content is the same as most other universities, learning how to comfortably compete with very intelligent, competitive people makes a difference. I was surprised at how relatively easy my equally ranked graduate school was for me - maybe in part it was due to the fact that I was only taking courses and learning subject matter I liked - but there is little doubt that as with intense athletic training, the intense undergrad experience helped (my honors undergrad mentor made it clear that learning was merely an exercise in how much ego damage I was willing to absorb).
Today, I question the value of these prestige schools. Their tuition has significantly outpaced inflation, and going to school to go to more school makes little economic sense for many. (I paid for undergrad with an athletic scholarship, and go tthrough graduate school with no debt mostly on the backs of futures trading, a trade I picked up in the three years between undergrad and grad - realistically - who in the heck can possibly do that today?).
Value and practical factors matter more than anything today. It is a difficult sell to many parents and students seeking prestige. But one can do well from any state flagship university, especially given their typically wide choice of majors.
I agree that, for most, a prestigious undergraduate education is not worth it. However, many types of graduate programs are definitely worth it, and their expense is vastly overblown.
Masters from a well-regarded university, especially in engineering or computer science: Only two years, tuition subsidized by greater earning potential.
MD/DO: Tuition subsidized my insane earning potential. Extremely low risk once you are accepted to a program in the US.
PhD: Any PhD program worth its weight in salt has a tuition waiver+stipend. If you are paying for your PhD, you are not in a real PhD program. Get out immediately. Most people do not stay in academia, but have greater earning potential in industry. Plus, you get 5-6 years of protected research time to work on a topic you are interested in.
There aren't many areas in life that require a phd. If you didn't get enough formal education k-12 + four years of college then you have wasted your time. There are exceptions for specialized technical stuff, but, exceptions are not the norm, obviously.
With respect to masters programs, my undergraduate degree coursework (in the major) was almost exactly the same as the graduate program. Same textbooks, same professors. Some differences, but not many. This graduate program (MBA) is ranked top-20 by nearly all organizations/ranking systems. What's the point? Why not just do it undergrad?
JoeRoganSuperFan wrote:
Already VERY unsafe for whites to travel (see Brock Turner witch hunt).
Three things:
1) Stanford is 68.4% Caucasian/White
2) Brock Turner was caught by two (Caucasian/White) graduate students while sexually assaulting an unconscious girl.
3) Joe Rogan would whip your ass for being so uninformed.
John Utah wrote:
MidBest wrote:
I agree that, for most, a prestigious undergraduate education is not worth it. However, many types of graduate programs are definitely worth it, and their expense is vastly overblown.
Masters from a well-regarded university, especially in engineering or computer science: Only two years, tuition subsidized by greater earning potential.
MD/DO: Tuition subsidized my insane earning potential. Extremely low risk once you are accepted to a program in the US.
PhD: Any PhD program worth its weight in salt has a tuition waiver+stipend. If you are paying for your PhD, you are not in a real PhD program. Get out immediately. Most people do not stay in academia, but have greater earning potential in industry. Plus, you get 5-6 years of protected research time to work on a topic you are interested in.
There aren't many areas in life that require a phd. If you didn't get enough formal education k-12 + four years of college then you have wasted your time. There are exceptions for specialized technical stuff, but, exceptions are not the norm, obviously.
With respect to masters programs, my undergraduate degree coursework (in the major) was almost exactly the same as the graduate program. Same textbooks, same professors. Some differences, but not many. This graduate program (MBA) is ranked top-20 by nearly all organizations/ranking systems. What's the point? Why not just do it undergrad?
Yes, I agree that there are few paths that REQUIRE a PhD. But you may want to do a PhD, and there's no reason not to do it if your PhD tuition is waived and you get a stipend. It may even help you in your industry career.
Regardless of what you learn in a masters program, getting a STEM masters from a good school will probably help your earning potential.
Sammy the cow wrote:
Stanford seems to have a better athletic program but Oregon seems to have the edge in acaxemics.
International perspective: Stanford has about the best prestige you can get in technical fields at least. U of Oregon I only know because of athletics. So, academically, Stanford x 1000.
MidBest wrote:
John Utah wrote:
There aren't many areas in life that require a phd. If you didn't get enough formal education k-12 + four years of college then you have wasted your time. There are exceptions for specialized technical stuff, but, exceptions are not the norm, obviously.
With respect to masters programs, my undergraduate degree coursework (in the major) was almost exactly the same as the graduate program. Same textbooks, same professors. Some differences, but not many. This graduate program (MBA) is ranked top-20 by nearly all organizations/ranking systems. What's the point? Why not just do it undergrad?
Yes, I agree that there are few paths that REQUIRE a PhD. But you may want to do a PhD, and there's no reason not to do it if your PhD tuition is waived and you get a stipend. It may even help you in your industry career.
Regardless of what you learn in a masters program, getting a STEM masters from a good school will probably help your earning potential.
I can only speak for my industry, but getting a phd in STEM will not really help much. In fact, it can hurt - "what is this person doing applying for this job" type of perception. I don't need you to know all of "that", but you will not be helpful to us if you don't know how to do "this". Most of the work done in business is not that technically challenging. Being a weirdo nerd who is always getting lost in tangents and theory is not helpful in the mainstream "bottom-line/results-driven" business world. (I'm grossly exaggerating just to make the point, of course.)
You didn't hook too many people, but still not too bad. 6/10.
Where is A Duck when you need him?
Hilarious
Nigel_Bikes wrote:
Really? You have to even ask this question? Stanford is waaaaaaay above Oregon in academics and athletics.
This is a troll post. It's been done before in various forms.
Some of you folks sure do worry about "libs" a lot.
Sammy the cow wrote:
Stanford seems to have a better athletic program but Oregon seems to have the edge in acaxemics.
Did you just compare Stanford to Oregon academically? This has to be a joke. Almost anyone can get into Oregon. Stanford on the other hand is one of the most selective universities in the country.
https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/university-of-oregon-3223https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/stanford-university-1305