Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Which of the two school has better academics and reputation? Many conservatives say Yale, but a LOT of people prefer Stanford. What are your opinions? Thanks.

By Chasgoose (Chasgoose) on Friday, June 27, 2003 - 07:46 pm: Edit

For technological and science related stuff I would say Stanford. For humanities related courses I would say Yale. Overall, the impression I get is that Yale is more undergraduate focused than Stanford is, so if you are going there as an undergraduate, you would probably receive a better education at Yale.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Friday, June 27, 2003 - 09:57 pm: Edit

Stanford is much better and rising. Stanford is better overall and has better science and buisness. Stanford is in a much nicer area. More warm and less dark and depressing.

By Kimfuge (Kimfuge) on Saturday, June 28, 2003 - 01:30 am: Edit

Which school has more rigorous curriculum?

By Jacobyale06 (Jacobyale06) on Saturday, June 28, 2003 - 12:32 pm: Edit

The rigorousness of the curricula at both schools varies in a broad range depending on the classes you take. The workload, essentially, is what you make of it...there are people at both schools who slack off and have way too much fun, and there are also people who pile on the work and have enough credits to graduate by junior year, as well as the dark eye-circles and half-drunk mugs of coffee to prove it.

By Jacobyale06 (Jacobyale06) on Saturday, June 28, 2003 - 12:37 pm: Edit

If you have specific questions you can also email me: < e-mail address removed - please just refer to your profile. Thanks. -Admin >
I'm a sophomore at Yale and I have two really good HS friends who are now sophomores at Stanford and love it there. The other two kids from my high school who are at Yale now both chose Yale over Stanford and love Yale, though. So I can probably answer your questions or ask someone who can.

By Jollyapplepie (Jollyapplepie) on Monday, June 30, 2003 - 03:11 pm: Edit

I think they're just about equal in prestige. Umm ... maybe you should think about their geographical locations (quite the opposite).

By Kimfuge (Kimfuge) on Tuesday, July 01, 2003 - 05:13 am: Edit

thanks.

By Wygbe (Wygbe) on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 04:05 am: Edit

stanford is overrated - and i am saying this as a stanford alum. i had a grand total of 2 memorable "professors" (one was a TA grad student from columbia} - both in the englsh department - at stanford, and as a math major i was subjected to an entire department of uncommunicative eccentrics who could care less about the undergraduate students. the same textbook we used for the honors calculus series was the textbook used for the normal freshman calculus series at uc santa barbara (the book used by the non-honors program at stanford was "easier.") alumni support, networking, and loyalty is nonexistent to minimal. i could go on.

By Dromedary (Dromedary) on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 11:06 am: Edit

Why does the calculus textbook selection matter to you? Calculus is so basic (as far as a math major is concerned) and the sequence is so standardized nationally that many of the textbooks might as well be copies of each other. I have seen at least four calculus books in-depth and none of them distinguished themselves from the others. If you want to complain about your Advanced Calculus textbook, that's another story.

"alumni support, networking, and loyalty is nonexistent to minimal"

You're going to have to expand on that point. This sounds like Stanford didn't get you the job you expected or something, and you blame it on these factors.

Generally, when someone comes on these boards to bash a specific school, I always wonder if they're just trolling. That's especially true if they claim to have already graduated from college. Why are you on CC if all college aspects of life are in your past?

By Kimfuge (Kimfuge) on Thursday, July 03, 2003 - 05:22 am: Edit

I think Stanford is still better.

By Wygbe (Wygbe) on Thursday, July 03, 2003 - 05:56 pm: Edit

Dear Dromedary -

Why am I on these boards? Because two of my kids are about to enter college, and I find interesting the exchange of information and thoughts on the various colleges.

Calculus textbooks, alumni support and loyalty, etc. Mere examples, as should have been obvious. There are other issues, and larger issues. But you can form your own opinion - since your reaction to mine was to set forth a series of personal attacks.

"Stanford didn't get you the job you expected or something...." Not true, and completely irrelevant.

My assumption was that these boards were for people to exchange opinions and thoughts. It appears that if someone has an opinion you find unpalatable, you deem it appropriate to attack his/her motives, honesty, and/or personal history.

By Dromedary (Dromedary) on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 02:32 am: Edit

The reason I stand against your original post was not to attack you (which I didn't), but to call into question the validity of your highly negative blanket statements.

"entire department of uncommunicative eccentrics who could care less about the undergraduate students"

Problems with statement: You didn't know everyone in the math department. Attacking the math profs as eccentric is meaningless; what's wrong with eccentricity? How do you know they didn't care? Perhaps it was you who did not seek to proactively make contact with your professors.

"the same textbook we used for the honors calculus series was the textbook used for the normal freshman calculus series at uc santa barbara"

Who cares? Does that make it bad? Read my response to the calculus book complaint. Is the book selection for FRESHMAN CALCULUS a reason to call an entire school "overrated?"

You still haven't replied to my inquiry regarding your meaning with "alumni support, networking, and loyalty is nonexistent to minimal." Instead, you chose to write off my message as a personal attack (certainly easier than responding to my questioning).

What else besides employment did you mean with "alumni networking?" I think my question about you not getting a job you wanted was warranted, based on the nature of your statement. And if all you mean by the above statement is, "There aren't enough cocktail parties for Stanford alumni in my area," who cares?

Stanford alumni loyalty isn't lacking, if their massive endowment is any indication.

Given all the problems I saw with your argument, and my fairly extensive experience with college message boards, it sure did seem possible that you were an anti-Stanford troll. If you had been a troll, it's possible you would have given up once I called your bluff.

Please, address my comments point-by-point, rather than baselessly accusing me of ad hominem attacks.

Edit: Oh, and had you recently failed to get a job that you expected from a Stanford graduate, it would not have been "irrelevant;" quite the contrary, it would have explained your entire post.

Edit 2: And if you were so unsatisfied with the math department, why didn't you transfer schools or change majors? You'll get little sympathy from me for sticking it out in a situation you could have easily changed but decided not to, for whatever reason.

By Wygbe (Wygbe) on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 02:47 am: Edit

you are entitled to form whatever opinions you wish.

By Dromedary (Dromedary) on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 12:05 pm: Edit

Where did I form opinions? Seems to me I just systematically analyzed your unsupported claims, and drew conclusions based on this process.

If that is to be the extent of your response, I think we can safely declare your original comments invalid. That's what happens in debates when you throw in the towel. You can't just make what are essentially inflammatory comments and expect nobody to challenge them. Your original post has now been reduced to "I didn't have a very good time at Stanford," and has no application to the school as a whole.

And another issue with your first post: Don't you think Stanford has changed in the 20+ years since you've been there (if you have college-aged kids)? It's generally acknowledged from what I've read that Stanford has gained immense prestige over the last few decades. I think you have no basis for calling Stanford overrated today if you attended so long ago that it could just as well have been a different school. If you had been a recent graduate, things might be a bit different (although even then, most of my points would still hold).

Unless you intimately understand a school TODAY, and have evidence to back up your claims, disparaging the college will not garner much agreement.

By Wygbe (Wygbe) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 05:19 am: Edit

hmm... "from what you have read" it is "generally acknowledged" (by whom? over what time period?) that stanford has gained prestige? and what are your qualifications to offer that opinion? the fact that you can read? oh, i guess you are also qualified because of your "fairly extensive experience with college message boards." wow, very impressive. you can read and you spend an inordinate amount of time on college message boards. who are you to be "challenging" others' experiences and opinions? what, exactly, are your qualifications? what is your educational background? your profession? the basis of your incredible understanding of schools in general and stanford in particular? why do you spend so much time acquiring "fairly extensive experience with college message boards"? on second thought, who cares? you, like others who are less arrogant and rude than you, are entitled to your opinions, even if they are not based on experience - other than "college message board experience." so post away - knock yourself out. i am sure you will continue to agree with yourself.

By Dromedary (Dromedary) on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 01:56 pm: Edit

I was basing my statement about Stanford's prestige on its high standing in the US News rankings (Stanford came out #1 in the first survey, ahead of Harvard and Yale, "demonstrating" to the public that it was Ivy material). Granted, that's not an ideal measure of a college's merits, but it does have some foundation in reality. Plus it's a huge contributing factor to people's ideas of a school's "prestige." These ranking began in 1983, which is probably after you left Stanford.

Take a look at the rankings of top schools since the surveys began: http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXVII/Issue_1/News/images/graph_big.jpg

Here's a page about the improvements made at Stanford during Casper's time at the University:

http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/1999/novdec/articles/casper.html

"fairly extensive" =! "inordinate amount of time"

You're not comfortable with your opinions being challenged? You want to be able to say whatever you want and have nobody disagree?

I don't think I have any special qualifications to question your post, and I don't think I need them either. As you said yourself, I can read, and that's about all one needs to see the flaws in your first argument.

I never claimed to have an incredible understanding of anything. Where in any of my posts did I assert knowledge in a specific area? Again, such specialized knowledge IS NOT NEEDED to see how you were making drastic generalizations without any supporting evidence.

Apparently, failing to accept your word as the gospel truth and take everything you said for granted makes me "arrogant and rude." I think I can see why you didn't like Stanford, if your idea of a debate does not involve an opposing side. Good plan: If someone disagrees with what you say and explains why, insult them for not seeing the light as you do! I'm sure your fellow Stanford students and professors appreciated this outlook, given that it runs counter to all the ideas of academic and intellectual exchange.

You continue declaring that your opinions are based on experience, yet you offer few or no examples to back up your claims!

And you persist in saying I'm entitled to my opinions, but what you don't seem to understand is I'm not even really voicing an opinion on this thread. Rather, I'm questioning the opinion of another that was presented as some kind of undeniable truth. "I think Stanford's overrated because I didn't like my time there 20+ years ago, and you must believe me because I went there way back when."

Your last two posts have included no responses to my many questions. This is further evidence of your desire to make a controversial statement, berate those who examine it, and then offer no valuable responses to important questions. You have become hypocritical as well, asking for my profession and basis for my comments while not providing your own (even though this information is irrelevant to the both of us); you have also accused me of attacking you personally, but seemed to do the same yourself by focusing your most recent post on how much time I do or don't spend on college message boards rather than the issue at hand.

I think the two of us are practicing fundamentally incompatible styles of debate. I'm growing weary of pointing out problems with your comments and being demeaned rather than having my points addressed. YOU can continue to think Stanford's overrated, but stating so here is wasted typing if you're unprepared to justify your incendiary comments. If you don't care to justify anything, readers must simply insert "In my subjective opinion" before each line of all your posts.

By Kimfuge (Kimfuge) on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 01:43 am: Edit

any more?

By Wygbe (Wygbe) on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 04:20 pm: Edit

happened on this thread by chance - again. for more, you might check the following thread on this board:

College Discussion Forums: Individual Schools: US News Top 25: Stanford University: 2004 Archive: Academics at Stanford

incidentally, my purpose is not to "trash" stanford, nor to get into a longwinded debate concerning my motives or research, but merely to point out that the scramble to get into a few, selected "prestigious" institutions is often misguided. articles like the following point out that certain schools inexplicably become "hot", with students and parents clamoring to gain admission for reasons which have little to do with educational values --

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/09/flanagan.htm

the us news ratings are known to be flawed and subject to manipulation. reed has sometimes been listed as "second tier", simply because the school declines to cooperate with the us news. schools like duke (according to rachel toor's book, "admissions confidential") beat the bushes for applicants, so they can reject them and increase their "selectivity rating." - the stanford president, incidentally, has been highly critical of the us news -

http://www.topcollegerankings.com/stanford-usnews.html