Given the competitiveness of admissions, it seems like it should rank above all the Ivies. The old money Northeast can't compete with the new money Silicon Valley.
Given the competitiveness of admissions, it seems like it should rank above all the Ivies. The old money Northeast can't compete with the new money Silicon Valley.
The best at brainwashing.
There’s a lever in the locked house to make Lagunita drain.
maybe the best university, sure.
So go get a graduate degree there.
but is Stanford the best for undergrads? not a chance.
That would be one of the smaller undergraduate colleges, like Williams, Dartmouth, Pomona.
Trash Music should stop wrote:
Given the competitiveness of admissions, it seems like it should rank above all the Ivies. The old money Northeast can't compete with the old money robber barons.
Leland Stanford?
It's the best in the US, but still outside the world's top 10.
Trash Music should stop wrote:
Given the competitiveness of admissions, it seems like it should rank above all the Ivies. The old money Northeast can't compete with the new money Silicon Valley.
Certainly the Bay Area has come of age in recent decades. But of the top US universities that jump to my mind, three (Stanford, Berkeley and Caltech) are on the west coast of the USA, whereas the northeast has the eight Ivies, MIT, the US Military Academy and Juilliard (yes, a very specialized school but one which has about a 6-7% admission rate). Expanding to the whole east coast adds the US Naval Academy and Duke.
Amazing campus/facilities, great weather, top professors, top students and very strong academic programs all around. I think (compared to the Ivies) that it may be "easier" to get into Stanford if you are a great athlete only though. So let's say you are a national champion in hs (or maybe just top 10 ranked) but have only average test scores....maybe Harvard doesn't let you in but Stanford probably would for sure. I heard they let footlocker finalists in who got under 1200 on their SAT (out of 1600). For a non-athlete that is a pretty low score relative to the rest of the applicants and usually you would get rejected. That may be a bad example though... I also heard that they have/had "athlete only dinning" halls as well (which many schools with very strong DI programs have). Then as someone already wrote: Are you comparing grad and undergrad programs? Or just undergrad? Research? It really depends on what your major is and what field you are in as obviously some programs may be stronger than others. Overall though it is obviously a very, very good school and very hard to get into. The univeristy name as a brand also is internationally recognized.
mortarboard wrote:
Trash Music should stop wrote:
Given the competitiveness of admissions, it seems like it should rank above all the Ivies. The old money Northeast can't compete with the new money Silicon Valley.
Certainly the Bay Area has come of age in recent decades. But of the top US universities that jump to my mind, three (Stanford, Berkeley and Caltech) are on the west coast of the USA, whereas the northeast has the eight Ivies, MIT, the US Military Academy and Juilliard (yes, a very specialized school but one which has about a 6-7% admission rate). Expanding to the whole east coast adds the US Naval Academy and Duke.
The world is changing rapidly. Universities will be phased out by real education. The basics will be health (without it forget it), finance and law (how to deal with your fellow man). Essentially what this does is teach you how to find happiness in your life. The days when professors read from a book, tell you to read from a book and then test you on what you read in that book is going to be long gone! Also, the professors who can't speak the language of instruction will be a thing of the past. How in the heck did these people get to be professors? And how in the world could they have "taught" so long? I was at the top of my class at the university and I can't figure that out.
ryjr wrote:
The world is changing rapidly. Universities will be phased out by real education. The basics will be health (without it forget it), finance and law (how to deal with your fellow man). Essentially what this does is teach you how to find happiness in your life. The days when professors read from a book, tell you to read from a book and then test you on what you read in that book is going to be long gone! Also, the professors who can't speak the language of instruction will be a thing of the past. How in the heck did these people get to be professors? And how in the world could they have "taught" so long? I was at the top of my class at the university and I can't figure that out.
Hard to believe you were actually at the head of your class if you couldn’t figure it out. It’s quite simple... university professors are all PhDs, the vast majority of whom are introverted academics with limited social/communication skills. While you were doing keg stands on Saturday night at a frat party or carousing with your work buddies after graduating with your bachelor’s, they were holed up in the library by themselves studying, or totally immersed in their research or thesis, alone in a lab.
The spots that Stanford reserves for athletes are the spots that the Ivies reserve for the children of the super wealthy. Watching Trump/ Trump Jr./ Kushner in action shows rich people who are inherently dumb can get into the Ivy League and graduate .
1420 SAT and 3:51 1500m high schooler didn't get in :(
would say it is pretty tough.
Son scored 1540 on the SAT and 35 on the ACT's...didn't get in but was told he would. 15:31 5k best, not great I know---but we thought with those scores he'd get in on academics. If you're Katie Couric's daughter yes, but not my son. It's just the way it is and yes it's both tough and who you know.
So the university hired them solely because they have a PhD even though they knew they couldn't speak English well enough to be understood? That's what I can't figure out.
If I had to guess? The university based their decision on the credentials but there was no check on if they could speak English well enough. In one case I know the professor taught for some time before one student recorded them teaching and demanded their tuition back. That's a smart student.
It’s the same at the other highly selectives. My son had nearly identical test scores of 35 and 1530 and ran 4:14. He was rejected by ND and several ivies.
Hornsby Bruce wrote:
Son scored 1540 on the SAT and 35 on the ACT's...didn't get in but was told he would. 15:31 5k best, not great I know---but we thought with those scores he'd get in on academics. If you're Katie Couric's daughter yes, but not my son. It's just the way it is and yes it's both tough and who you know.
Milt, specifically, didn’t want him for some reason. I assume he got into another top school so you know how this works: coaches take their preferred applicants to admissions and unless they are waayy out of alignment with the average academic profile they are in.
I know some other accomplished student/athletes that were turned down by Milt, even a state champ who got in on his own and wanted to walk on.
Trash Music should stop wrote:
Given the competitiveness of admissions, it seems like it should rank above all the Ivies. The old money Northeast can't compete with the new money Silicon Valley.
OP,
Your touch on a good subject. But you branch off your topic when you talk about old money etc.
the truth is, Stanford is an ivy league school in terms of atmosphere, rate of acceptance, and the list of famous and accomplished alumni. Where Stanford separates itself from Ivy league schools, is that it is far more advanced in athletics than any Ivy League school, because they don't have to hide under the "Ivy league schools don't give athletic scholarships" BUlls-t! There are dozens, if not hundreds of cases of people on the Yale, Harvard, etc football teams who had less than 1000 on their SAT's. And, it is not a mere coincidence when someone is very good at a sport that they suddenly are accepted to an Ivy league school. Stanford gives athletic scholarships, but puts it out there. You have to also be an above average student. The Ivies should adapt to the new modern era, and take down their fake standard of "we don't give athletic scholarships" No one is buying that..
agip wrote:
maybe the best university, sure.
So go get a graduate degree there.
but is Stanford the best for undergrads? not a chance.
That would be one of the smaller undergraduate colleges, like Williams, Dartmouth, Pomona.
Don't forget Denison and Emory!
The University of California, Berkeley is and has long been the best graduate school in the country. You go down the list and program after program is in the top five.
For lucrative tech opportunities in and after college, you cannot beat Stanford, but its departments are not the equal, on an undergraduate level, with Harvard outside the sciences.
A classmate of mine was accepted to Stanford as class president but not that great a student (1350 on the old, pre-elevated SAT's and maybe a 3.7-3.8 gpa out of 4.0). As a track athlete, he wasn't special, maybe a 51 or 52 quarter. But he had a connection in the admissions office, I believe.