| By Collegebound123 (Collegebound123) on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 09:14 pm: Edit |
Okay... I've always wanted to go to Stanford. But reading the threads on the board, I've read a lot about TA's teaching classes. Also I heard a lot of the students are surfing types and aren't as "intellectual" as say, a school on the east coast because they study hard but put up a laid-back facade. Now I'm not trying to say anything negative here because, although I've never been to Stanford, it is the school at the top of my list. Can anyone who has gone to Stanford clear up some of these things I've posted?
| By Trojan1444 (Trojan1444) on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 12:13 am: Edit |
TA's dont teach very many classes at all. About the same as HYP probably.
People aren't "unintellectual" at Stanford, they're just not east-coast-prep-school-trust-fund snobs like you'll find at east coast schools. Students at Stanford are incredibly bright but also laid back and unpretentious.
| By Chrisq (Chrisq) on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 02:05 am: Edit |
Well, I'm going to be a freshman at Stanford this year, and I've never gone surfing in my life! It's amazing to me how deeply stereotypes of colleges resonate with the general population. For example, when most adults hear that I'm going to Stanford, they say something along the lines of "hope you don't spend too much time at the beach!" If I were to tell the same people that I was attending Harvard, the reaction would be very different. Most people (at least, most people who don't hold jobs in academia) I've spoken to can't believe that anyone would turn down Harvard for Stanford. (Where's that again?)
However, Collegebound123, and I want to try to make some semblance of the "truth" stand out here: the fact is, all of these "top" schools are extraordinarily similar. The kinds of people you will find at Stanford are not categorically different from the students you would find anywhere else, out East included. There is tons of overlap among applicants applying to Stanford and Ivy League schools. How could admissions magically weed out the "surfer types," leaving the "intellectuals" to the East? It just doesn't happen that way! (I'm evidence!)
I am very aware that students at Stanford are reputed for putting up a "laid-back facade." However, I don't think that Stanford students are unique in this regard either. The analogy of the duck, appearing calm on the surface of the water, but paddling furiously underneath, might be true of many Stanford students, but I don't think you could visit a college anywhere in the U.S. where you couldn't find students acting the exact same way. I think also that this analogy is just another symptom of the desire so many people feel to act "cool" or to fit in. For a lot of people, it's easier to act like they're not really working slavishly on X, Y, or Z. The appearance of gliding through things effortlessly is for many an attempt to make themselves appear cooler, unfazed by the things around them.
And to Trojan1444: I'm going to be staying in Roble, too! How ironic. Still, I think you are being unfair by characterizing east coast students as snobs. Think about how many Stanford students end up just inches away from deciding to be an east coast student, and maybe you'll think twice about what you said. 
East/West rivalries are ridiculous things that are really just figments of our imagination. The commonalities between students at these schools are the really striking things.
| By Samueladams (Samueladams) on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 02:34 am: Edit |
Well, the TA problem is present at all top schools. I assure you it's no greater a problem at Stanford than anywhere else. They have great intro sems that are limited to 16 students, designed specifically to give you the kind of interaction with a professor that so many of us crave.
As for the attitude of the students, it is different. Comparing it to MIT, I loved the intellectual vibrancy of the place and the intelligence most of the students gave off (@ MIT). Now at admit weekend for Stanford, I did see that the students try to appear less intelligent than they are, I do not know why anyone would want to do this, but I did see it. However, anything you read about Stanford, and the amazing things the students are accomplishing, demostrates the fact that the students are by no means slacking. In fact I chose Stanford largely by the impression I have of the place, and not neccessarily the impression I got during the visit. The idea of kids being surfer types and laid back is a superficial view of what the students are doing. There is such a variety of kids at Stanford, some can slack, most will not. The idea is that when you leave your studies, you are surrounded by people that do not neccessarily have any knowledge of what you do, and so everyone appears to be managing their own "things" really well. I didn't get to know many students when I saw the place, so i attribute what I saw to the fact that I didn't really get to know anyone in depth to see what they were doing. In fact the one time I did, I found out the kid was taking this crazy honors physics course that had 10 freshmen or something, and he just happened to seem not geeky at all. Turns out everyone's immensely smart and doesn't need to let it hinder their social skills. Being an incoming freshmen, I have taken the time to get to know other freshmen, and I can tell you there is no lack of intellectual vibrancy. Other ISEF/STS winners, kids really interested in science, other really big nerds to be with, lit majors, it's a whole slew of people. As a whole though, the diversity of interests is so great that if you see one dorm together, they won't be discussing some obstruse science topic, but if you get down to a group of kids all in the same class, they might. And that's the difference between Stanford and schools with less variety. Sit some students down who all have a similar interest, especially to your own, and see if they still seem unconcerned with their studies or don't feel like having some discourse. And if you want to be impressed, check out the research the students are doing across all disciplines, it's pretty cool. In addition, the water is *at least* 20 minutes away, so no one can surf.
I apologize for the length
| By Masterchris (Masterchris) on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 03:02 am: Edit |
No TA's teach classes at Stanford. All classes are taught by professors. TA's are used, like at almost all colleges, to help you review the lectures and to go over what you might not understand. Stanford has a low student:professor ratio. It is 6.9:1, which is one of the best in the nation. Harvard is 8:1.
Secondly, Stanford is not even on the beach. The beach is at least a half hour away, and I doubt more than 10% of students have ever surfed. Stanford combines the best in academics with the best in quality of life (country club campus, perfect weather, good sports teams/spirit).
I read that the campus, designed by olmstead, the central park develper, designed the campus so it faces out onto the real world, while east coast schools have courtyards that are cloisters of intellectualism. This is from the fisk guide to colleges. I prefer Stanford a lot more than those old east coast schools.
| By Jaylopy (Jaylopy) on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 05:28 am: Edit |
[from Masterchris]: No TA's teach classes at Stanford. All classes are taught by professors. [written by Eric Roberts, who is the (sole) faculty member on the Educational Affairs Division]: However, we are talking about engineering, which can have a serious, and potentially fatal, impact on people's lives. Computer software controls x-ray machines, machinery, and financial software. Flaws in software could lead to overdoses of radiation, dismemberment, or losses of millions of dollars. [from Masterchris]: Stanford has a low student:professor ratio. Much of the information that goes into college rankings is provided by the schools themselves. To their credit, ranking compilers usually go to great lengths to try to get data that is both accurate and comparable from school to school. Nevertheless, creative administrators have occasionally found ways to report their data in a way to make their institution look better.
Quote:
Apparently that's a false assertion. From http://www.ics.uci.edu/~kay/pubs/intro-ed-res-dept.html regarding the computer science department:
Quote:
As at most institutions, the enrollment patterns in computer science courses at Stanford place considerable pressure on teaching resources.
...
Meeting this high level of demand using regular faculty would place a disproportionate burden on the department that would make it difficult to maintain our position as the top-ranked research department in the United States.
...
Stanford has relied for almost twenty years on a separate teaching faculty to supply much of the instruction. This group, which is called the Educational Affairs Division, currently consists of one faculty member and six lecturers.
...
Lecturers are typically appointed for terms of between two and three years and are considered for promotion to Senior Lecturer after seven years.
Lecturers are responsible for two types of courses:
1. Introductory courses, which are interpreted as extending beyond the CS1/CS2 level to include the standard sophomore course.
2. Service courses, which consist of practically oriented courses targeted primarily to our master's program and students from local companies who are enrolled via the Stanford Industrial Television Network (SITN).
...
Teaching support in the form of TAs and undergraduate section leaders is available to courses taught by lecturers at the same level as those taught by faculty.
Some interesting points in the above quote:
1) Lecturers, who are not professors, teach classes.
2) "Section leaders" can either be "teaching assistants" (ie graduate students funded by a teaching assistance fellowship) or other undergraduates (parents, take note!) What is a "section", but a class? From the Merriam Webster online dictionary (at http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=class&x=16&y=8), a "class" is "a body of students meeting regularly to study the same subject". Therefore, if a "section leader" can be an undergraduate, and a "section" is a class, then undergraduates do teach classes.
3) The classes are not only for the large introductory classes, but classes that extend through the sophomore year, although judging by some of the course listings, some junior-level and some senior-level courses are also taught by lecturers. Roberts even reveals that lecturers are used in master's courses as well.
4) Stanford has been doing this for over twenty years.
Note that the Computer Science degree from Stanford University is not accredited by the Accreditation Board of Engineering Technology, although it is accredited at places like MIT, UC Berkeley, and UCLA. The relevance of this was discussed earlier on these boards in the thread "For those deciding between MIT and Stanford" (do a "Message Search" on that phrase in the category "Individual Schools" since I can't hyperlink to it here for some obscure technical problems with how College Confidential treats its URLS ); in particular, as I wrote in that post
Quote:
It is my understanding that, in Canada, all engineering students who graduate are given a ring which commemorates the accidental collapse of a bridge that killed people. The bridge had flaws in its design. Wearing this ring constantly reminds these professionals of the seriousness of their degree, and that engineering errors can lead to dangerous consequences.
The listings of accredited programs are at http://www.abet.org/accredited_programs/computing/schoolarea.asp.
Back to whether or not "professors" teach: refer to June 5, 2002, edition of the The Stanford Daily, in an article by Brendan Marten, which discusses Student Initiated Courses:
Quote:
When the Faculty Senate’s Committee on Undergraduate Studies reconvenes this autumn, it may review and propose changes to the Student Initiated Courses program.
Established during spring quarter of last year, the program tries to allow students to work with faculty to create courses that explore issues not otherwise covered in the University curriculum. The courses are offered for a few units apiece.
...
University Registrar Roger Printup is among the administrators who have personally questioned the level of oversight in the program.
“There have been cases brought to our attention where these courses have very little or no faculty supervision,” Printup said. “The faculty is supposed to be doing the teaching - the faculty, not the students.”
Who knows if they resolved the matter? What kind of environment is conducive to cause the problem in the first place?
Quote:
There are many levels of professorships: assistant ("junior level") , associate ("intermediate"), tenured (can't get fired), research (may or may not be tenured, doesn't teach), courtesy (belongs to another department but has skill sets that could be useful for research purposes), and consulting (external, has full or part time employment elsewhere, usually doesn't teach and is used for researchers). Stanford's EE department has something like 51 consulting professors, and 30 tenured professors. Ratios as published in U.S. News and World Report are almost meaningless. You might as well determine the ratio of wild birds to students; it will have the same relevance.
College Confidential also has a critique about US News and World Report and college rankings in general (http://www.collegeconfidential.com/college_rankings/bad_rankings.htm), the bottom line of which is not to take any of the measurements too seriously:
Quote:
It's kind of sad to think that some universities, which are supposedly involved in seeking "truth", engage in practices meant to obfuscate and distort the truth as presented to the general public.
| By Stanfordman99 (Stanfordman99) on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 09:55 am: Edit |
"Most people (at least, most people who don't hold jobs in academia) I've spoken to can't believe that anyone would turn down Harvard for Stanford. (Where's that again?)"
You must be from the east coast. When I told people of my college plans, nobody thought it was strange that I turned down Harvard for Stanford. Lots of other kids here did it too. (I'm from California)
| By Jaylopy (Jaylopy) on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 11:17 am: Edit |
A sentence in my previous post above was misleading:
Quote:
Note that the Computer Science degree from Stanford University is not accredited by the Accreditation Board of Engineering Technology, although it is accredited at places like MIT, UC Berkeley, and UCLA.
This sentence is bad because it could be misinterpreted as "the Computer Science degree from Stanford...is accredited at places like MIT, UC Berkeley, and UCLA."
I meant to say that "the Computer Science degree from Stanford is not accredited by ABET; the Computer Science degrees from MIT, UC Berkeley, and UCLA are accredited by ABET."
| By Stanfordman99 (Stanfordman99) on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 01:36 pm: Edit |
Oh dear god the Stanford computer science degree isn't accredited by the ABET! Hurry up we have to delist Google, Sun MicroSystems, and Yahoo from NASDAQ. Those corporations, founded by Stanford alums that majored in computer science, aren't accredited!
Hmmm....what companies did UC Berkeley or UCLA alums start up?
| By Samueladams (Samueladams) on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 03:30 pm: Edit |
That whole ABET thing is crap, there was a discussion on it, I think Caltech or somewhere else awesome was barely accredited, that statements holds very little signifigance. Sections are not really classes as I understand it, so following your train of logic, students do not really teach classes. Sections are at the end of the week, lets say I have math everyday, taught by a professor, on fridays I'll have section with a TA which breaks down in smaller groups so we can go over more material, it's not being taught the material the first time around, rather it's a review.
Now, major research universities all use TA's, and have been doing so for well over 20 years, to help support the burden of teaching so professors can do research. That is why students choose to go here, to try and get interaction with these people and possibly pursue research with them. We consider it important in our education to forfeit some teaching duties, otherwise we'd go to a LAC and get full time profs. Research profs do not "not teach", they do, just less.
| By Samueladams (Samueladams) on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 03:33 pm: Edit |
.
| By Samueladams (Samueladams) on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 03:35 pm: Edit |
.
| By Chrisq (Chrisq) on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 07:03 pm: Edit |
Stanfordman99: nope, I'm not from the East Coast. I went to high school in Texas and moved to Minnesota this summer. Most schools, even the best, don't have really broad appeal to the general public outside of their region. Not to •••• on the general public (after all, why does it matter that everyone knows about a school?) but most people don't even know what MIT stands for.
| By Stanfordman99 (Stanfordman99) on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 09:54 pm: Edit |
You need to stop hanging around those kinds of people. They lower your IQ.
| By Alum (Alum) on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 09:58 pm: Edit |
While the post by Jaylopy about "a separate teaching faculty" contains a few interesting quotations, it is very ridiculous and misleading.
1. Yes, lecturers do teach some of the introductory CS courses at Stanford. They are incredible instructors, and are specifically retained for their teaching abilities rather than their research focus. They are extraordinary programmers. Almost all of them hold PhDs in computer science. My personal experience is that the introductory CS sequence at Stanford is far better than the ones at MIT and Harvard (have had significant exposure to these three departments).
2. There is no difference in TA composition (grad student, undergrad, etc) at Stanford vs. anywhere else. And yes, TA's "teach" at every school in the country too.
3. Anybody who chooses not to attend a university because its engineering programs are not "ABET accredited" is free to do so. There are plenty of good schools out there, both universities and trade schools, that *are* ABET accredited.
| By Jaylopy (Jaylopy) on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 10:49 pm: Edit |
Quote:[Stanfordman99 wrote:] Hurry up we have to delist Google, Sun MicroSystems, and Yahoo from NASDAQ. Those corporations, founded by Stanford alums that majored in computer science, aren't accredited!
Quote:[Stanfordman99 wrote:] Hmmm....what companies did UC Berkeley or UCLA alums start up?
| By Jaylopy (Jaylopy) on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 11:20 pm: Edit |
Quote:
[Samueladams wrote:] Sections are at the end of the week, lets say I have math everyday, taught by a professor, on fridays I'll have section with a TA which breaks down in smaller groups so we can go over more material, it's not being taught the material the first time around, rather it's a review.
...
Research profs do not "not teach", they do, just less.
Quote:
Experience in teaching is emphasized in the Ph.D. program. Each
student is required to complete nine quarters of such experience. The
nature of the teaching assignment for each of those quarters is determined
by the department in consultation with the student. Typical assignments
include teaching or assisting in teaching an undergraduate course or lecturing
in an advanced seminar.
Quote:
[Samueladams wrote:]
Sections are not really classes as I understand it, so following your train of logic, students do not really teach classes.
Quote:[Samueladams wrote:]
That whole ABET thing is crap, there was a discussion on it, I think Caltech or somewhere else awesome was barely accredited, that statements holds very little signifigance.
| By Efilsiertaeht (Efilsiertaeht) on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 11:58 pm: Edit |
the "Miriam Webster" definition is obsolete, a "section" is not a "class". Period. Sections are exactly as Sam put them, to review information learned in lecture. Someone I know was a teaching assistant in CS, in fact, for one of these courses... it was not in any way his job to teach the class, nor did he do so.
Did he say that Stanford didn't WANT to be part of the ABET program? Of course it does, just so that people will choose it over Berkeley for a reason just as someone would choose Amherst over Williams because of it's numbers in the USNews. Or Harvard over Stanford, for that matter. But just because it's NOT accredited by Stanford does NOT mean it's any worse. That's like saying a kid who works really hard and understands everything but makes a couple addition mistakes on a math test and gets a B+ is worse than the kid who just knows it and never studies. MIT, Stanford, and Cal are the top three Comp Sci programs... both in what they teach and where their students go.
| By Chrisq (Chrisq) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 12:13 am: Edit |
Jaylopy:
I really don't see what all the fuss is about non-professors teaching classes. I went to a summer math program at Stanford in 2003 (SUMaC - we mainly studied abstract algebra), where I met tons of Stanford and Berkeley math PhD students, and let me tell you: these people were excellent teachers! They knew the material inside and out, and they were more than willing to get down on my level and talk with me one-on-one. You don't have to hold the title of professor to be a great teacher. In fact, some of the younger teachers, with fewer laurels, were more animated and excited about teaching the material, because it was a new deal for them.
What I gathered overall from the experience was that Stanford is filled, I mean absolutely brimming, with people who are extremely smart and motivated and fun to be around. To demand classes taught by professors and only professors is actually to take a position of uninformed arrogance, a position that says: "I can't learn enough from a PhD student, or anyone else who's not a full-fledged professor." The truth is, most of the learning you actually do in college, or at any other point in your education, comes from the people around you: your direct classmates and the more advanced students in classes above you. Only a handful of people can really exhaust these resources, and for those people it's fine to split hairs about whether or not a professor is teaching their class. If that person is you, then fine, but people like that do not compose the majority of any student body, or probably even any individual class, anywhere in the country.
| By Imblue (Imblue) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 12:19 am: Edit |
ABET accreditation is more important for Engineering degrees than for CS degrees. MIT is ABET accredited for the degrees of BS Computer Science and Engineering and BS Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. Similarly, Berkeley is ABET accredited for the degree of BS Computer Science and Engineering, which is one of the degrees granted by their department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (the other is Electrical and Computer Engineering). Carnegie Mellon is also not ABET accredited in Computer Science, but it is widely considered one of the big 4 CS schools along with MIT, Stanford, and Berkeley.
| By Alum (Alum) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 08:59 am: Edit |
Jaylopy, I was personally impressed to see how much time you have wasted compiling this "analysis" of Stanford math instructors. But again, it is completely off base and misleading.
1. Possibly all of the "graduate students" you have identified are *not* grad students. I don't know all of them, but the ones I am personally familiar with are assistant professors, lecturers, and research fellows. All are PhDs in math. Many are absolutely brilliant and are superb teachers.
2. But in general, what is your obsession with having "professors" teach classes? And with Webster's definition of "teaching a class"? I have studied at several top schools around the country - maybe you have too - and am quite certain that academic rank has very little to do with teaching ability.
| By Imblue (Imblue) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 05:39 pm: Edit |
I think it's interesting how some people put down research universities for having professors that supposedly care little about teaching, and assert that LACs provide a far better education due to dedicated professors whose main job is to teach, only to turn around and whine that some classes at research universities are "only" taught by lecturers, many of whom are well qualified to teach. In my experience, my lecturers have been some of the best teachers.
| By Samueladams (Samueladams) on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 02:16 am: Edit |
Jaylopy also forgot to mention that the founder of Intel, maybe he is the other co-founder... went to Stanford. He spoke to us at ISEF, so of this I am sure.
The listing of math courses is not entirely correct, The one math class I was referring to specifically is not on there... math 51h. It does meet everyday and breaks down on friday for section. There's only one class of it, so the prof teaches everyone. Sections as they are defined in the dictionary are not applicable to Stanford, because sections, as they are encountered by students there, are the way I described them, in which case that is the only relevant way to describe them. What does the meaning of the word section matter if it has no correlation with the actual sections at Stanford? Students often choose not to attend sections as well, because they are not the primary arena for teaching, but I imagine they are only there for ones benefit. Now other classes are different I'm sure, but my example still holds true.
Also, I heard vakil was the best professor a number of students have encountered, and it would be unfortunate if he was not instructing this year. However, as I started looking at profs names, it appears that many of the ones listed in gray in the post above (ie. not teaching) actually are teaching classes, I noticed this for two profs and it's possible if I had continued down the list there would be more. I'm surprised the research was done so shoddily for that post, it's not entirely accurate. If anyone cares to take the time, it'd be interesting to see exactly how many of the math dept. members are teaching classes.
| By Aim78 (Aim78) on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 09:02 pm: Edit |
Erm, why do you colorize everything? And make things bold? That's gotta take a LOT of your time.
| By Efilsiertaeht (Efilsiertaeht) on Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 04:18 am: Edit |
There are some people who devote their lives to Stanford bashing. It is their life's purpose, for one reason or another, to turn people away from stanford. I think we should all look at this to our advantage. It keeps away the shallow people who only look for things like "% of instruction/help by tenured professors" and draws the people who see through it to the actual quality of education they will recieve.
| By Jaylopy (Jaylopy) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 08:40 pm: Edit |
Quote:[Chrisq:]
I really don't see what all the fuss is about non-professors teaching classes
Quote:[Alum:]
But in general, what is your obsession with having "professors" teach classes?
Quote:[Alum:]
Possibly all of the "graduate students" you have identified are *not* grad students. I don't know all of them, but the ones I am personally familiar with are assistant professors, lecturers, and research fellows.
Quote:[Sameuladams:]
Jaylopy also forgot to mention that the founder of Intel, maybe he is the other co-founder... went to Stanford.
Quote:[Sameuladams:]
The one math class I was referring to specifically is not on there... math 51h.
Quote:[Efilsiertaeht]
the "Miriam Webster" definition is obsolete, a "section" is not a "class".
Quote:[Aim78:]
Erm, why do you colorize everything? And make things bold? That's gotta take a LOT of your time.
Quote:[Alum:]
Jaylopy, I was personally impressed to see how much time you have wasted compiling this "analysis" of Stanford math instructors.
Quote:
Stanford has spent more than seven years transferring its financial systems onto applications from Oracle called Oracle Financials. The project was supposed to be finished in 1999...
...
Stanford has spent a lot of money on software and still has work to do. According to the university's annual budget plans, the board of trustees since 1999 has been asked to approve $93.4 million in capital expenditures for applications and infrastructure . The trustees had approved $60 million in 1994 to overhaul Stanford's entire administrative information systems, a project they expected would take five years, even though controller Susan Calandra says some of the projects in the original plan were never started.
...
What makes Stanford's troubles all the more ironic is the institution's proximity to Oracle and PeopleSoft. Stanford, with its gracious red-tiled roofs, and Oracle, with its gleaming metal-and-glass towers, sit just 10 miles apart along Route 101, the main thoroughfare through Silicon Valley. Three Stanford professors serve on Oracle's board of directors
...
Now faced with budget cuts and layoffs, Stanford's information technology department has successfully sent coding and maintenance work to outsourcing firms in India, which are helping with Oracle report writing and an upgrade to PeopleSoft v. 8.
Quote:According to University Registrar Roger Printup, about 900 returning students were affected by a glitch in the University computer system over the summer. The bug prevented students from renewing their old P.O. Boxes at the end of last year. To compound the problem, a separate computer problem assigned many returning students to different boxes and assigned their old, supposedly unrenewed and empty boxes to incoming freshmen. As a result, about 150 returning students have now had their boxes permanently reassigned, causing headaches for those affected.
...
Senior Wenfei Xie is one of the 150 who now has to deal with a permanent address change, and for her it will take more than an extra walk to Old Union to straighten things out.
Addressing information for credit card billings, magazine subscriptions, tuition checks and more will all have to be changed, Xie said. Plus, she has not received some expected time-sensitive mail for two weeks.
Quote:[Imblue:]
I think it's interesting how some people put down research universities for having professors that supposedly care little about teaching...only to turn around and whine that some classes at research universities are "only" taught by lecturers, many of whom are well qualified to teach.
Quote:Parents and prospective students that a program has met minimum standards; Faculty, deans and administrators of a program’s strengths and weaknesses and of ways to improve the program; Employers that graduates are prepared to begin professional practice; Taxpayers that their funds are spent well; and The public that graduates are aware of public health and safety considerations.
State licensing boards and certification programs may require graduation from an ABET-accredited program as the first step in the registration or certification process for professional practice. In some instances, ABET accreditation may permit students to receive federal funds in the form of scholarships, loans and grants.
Quote:
Robert W. Dutton is the Robert and Barbara Kleist Professor of Engineering at Stanford University and Director of Research in the Center for Integrated Systems. He received the B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1966, 1967, and 1970, respectively.
| By Needhelp06 (Needhelp06) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 09:13 pm: Edit |
good god that is the longest post i have ever seen.
| By Consciousdenial (Consciousdenial) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 11:05 pm: Edit |
seriously
| By Idler (Idler) on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 10:19 am: Edit |
Jaylopy: it is certainly a waste of time to try to prove that Stanford is second rate, and that you are brilliant.
| By Nngmm (Nngmm) on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 11:35 am: Edit |
Jaylopy: Get a life!
| By Samueladams (Samueladams) on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 06:54 pm: Edit |
And to avenge myself, I met the man himself who runs intel, it was at ISEF, in front of thousands of people it said on the projector that he went to Stanford, Intel sponsors the whole competition. I assure you I am not wrong. If anyone would really like a good opinion of Stanford, start talking to the students, you want rigor and intensity, see how hard my classes are and how much I have to work. Every class I have, and these are lectures and the like, are taught by professors. I have math everyday by a professor, I have physics by a relative of the michelson from the michelson morley experiment, and in the spring the nobel laureate osheroff will be teaching me. This people are great, I talk to them, they give interesting lectures... they're completely worth it. The old head of the business school teaches my citizenship course, I've never had a more fun lecture. Even my TA for the citizenship section which I have two days a week... the BEST. The man is so much fun, it's 9 of us sitting around a table for 1.5 hours just talking socrates and mencius, and he leaves the discussions open ended and helps guide us. There is nothing like being at Stanford, struggling through your classes, and meeting amazing people who totally want to help you and work with you along the way. I've got great study groups for math, I've got the coolest kids in my dorm to party with if I choose, but more often than naught discuss math puzzles and philisophical ideas brought up in class with. Sure, i'm doing on average five hours of homework per night, sometimes more if I'm smart, but there's nothing like working hard here, it's so rewarding. Lets talk about this sort of stuff and less about particulars of accredidation, # of TAs, and where companies come from, and more about the QUALITY of all those people.
| By Samueladams (Samueladams) on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 06:56 pm: Edit |
^
Report an offensive message on this page
E-mail this page to a friend
| Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information. |
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |