Is Stanford the "gold standard?"
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
DD going to Columbia for NYC, not the school itself? That's interesting. Do Columbia students not spend most of their time on campus? |
Anonymous
This statement really says more about you than the students at Stanford, you know. |
Anonymous
That just isn't the way MOST students think. Most undergraduate students spend the bulk of their time on or near campus. I pity those who miss the college experience in the pursuit of a urban/suburban experience that will be available the rest of their lives. |
Anonymous
I was referring to the part which was bolded above. |
Anonymous
There is a lot I would question here. On what basis do you claim Stanford is the most selective? Are you arguing on admission rate? That alone would be questionable. I would think quality of enrolled class would be a better indicator, and there are several rivals there. I also would certainly like to think that people have different goals and needs, so there isn't one "Gold Standard". Stanford is certainly strong, particularly in STEM, but I would certainly think a good case could be made for Harvard, MIT, Caltech, Oxford/Cambridge, and other schools as well, depending on the criteria. Harvard has maintained an edge in cross-admits over Stanford, I believe (that is what Parchment shows), and certainly could make a case for having less STEM-heavy student body and unrivaled strength in humanities. MIT and Caltech are phenomenal in engineering and science and for producing academics. For law, I would cite Yale or Harvard before Stanford if I had to name a "Gold Standard". For MBA, Harvard would be he one that comes to mind first. (Harvard is often considered tops for management, Stanford for tech/entrepreneurship, and Wharton for finance.) |
Anonymous
+1 I went to both. Harvard for undergrad, Stanford for grad. I much preferred the atmosphere and culture of Harvard. To me the Stanford campus life seemed isolated, sterile, and uninteresting, in contrast to the quirkier urban vibe of Harvard. At the time I went (many, many years ago), Harvard also had the more renowned, "star power" professors in my humanities field. |
Anonymous
Oh does it now? Good to know. |
Anonymous
Glad to be of service. |
Anonymous
Yeah, such a life saver. Really helpful. |
Anonymous
+1 |
Anonymous
| Stanford is only the most selective school due to lack of competition. It's the only truly world-class elite private university west of the Mississippi. Yale, Harvard, and Princeton are located a couple hundred miles from each other and are tugging away for applicants and interests. Furthermore, you get a lot of weaker applicants at Stanford who are more interested in athletics and stand no chance of getting in. The desirability of California plays a big impact as well, which is why you see Berkeley/UCLA as the public schools with the lowest acceptance rates and Pomona/CMC as the LACs with this. |
Anonymous
Yep. All schools—even the elite ones—primarily draw from kids who live relatively close to the school. |
Anonymous
You have no idea what you're talking about. It's hilarious that you seriously think the only reason people apply to Berkeley is because it's just some random public school in California where the weather is nice. And that Stanford is only famous because it has no competition. Have you heard of this little thing called the Internet?  Where do you think it came from?
And you think non-Californian universities don't have weaker applicants who are hoping to slip in based on athletics? 
|
Anonymous
Ummmm well since you asked: the Internet was originally developed by the USG. |
Anonymous
It was a U.S. government project (ARPANET), but work was done at universities, like many government projects, including UCLA and Stanford. |