Anonymous wrote:DD was accepted into Stanford REA on Friday. No merit or financial aid of any kind. Also was accepted today to George Mason University, in-state, full-tuition merit scholarship. This was her safety affordable option. Stanford was the stretch.

Which one to choose for a B.S. in Computer Science? The Stanford route is going to cost about $300K more over four years. Is the degree really worth that much more? DH votes for George Mason and to use the savings (including $245K 529) to pay for law school. She is planning to pursue Intellectual Property Law with a STEM B.S.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe there is a discussion between Stanford and GMU - yeah!!

I did GMU CS and its not a guarantee that a Stanford admit will dominate. We had people graduate from GMU and then go to Stanford, so I can gauge the quality of a Stanford admit. The top end of GMU is Stanford off-course but not a domination level.

That said - Stanford has the advantage of more opportunities. People look at a resume and Stanford will get you an interview. Mano a Mano - there are some GMU guys that hold their own.

Perhaps. We’re talking about a B.S. from GMU for $60K vs. a B.S. from Stanford for $360K. Stanford is 6X the price point of GMU. Is it six times as valuable? Entry level programmer with no experience from GMU could easily make $90K and get a job in a flash. Are we saying the same kid graduating from Stanford is going to make $540K?!? That’s preposterous. Not sure the ROI is there with Stanford. C, C++, and Java are the same languages no matter where you study. Books and reference materials are all the same.

Big difference is kids at GMU that excel do so because they’re exceptional and self-motivated. Kids at Stanford excel because they’re simply keeping up with the pack. Most people are lazy and need the external push you get at Stanford to be forced to succeed. Same kids that are coddled by underwhelming helicopter parents.

Go with GMU PP. Your DD sounds like a highly capable superstar as opposed to a false front DCUM poser.

So my bragging rights for GMU is that I graduated without debt. I got hired quicker than my "college town" higher ranked friends - GMU has a co-op/internship program next to DC really helped. GMU is a hidden gem that the local snobbery ignore. If you compare GMU vs any other school besides: MIT or Stanford - I'd agree hands down.

The only thing left out of the equation above is that the Silicon Valley guys are dominated with Stanford guys. They are snobs themselves and put their own above anyone else. And you are buying a $300K name on paper and hoping it pays out in the future.

I guess it depends on your goals - if you want to stay in this area and have a decent living GMU. if you want a VC with a shot at becoming insanely wealthy then Stanford? though this is a long-shot.

Applied to and was accepted at MIT but couldn’t afford to go since my parents had too much HHI but hadn’t actually saved anything for any of us for college. Instead, I attended George Mason University and spent $0 to get a B.S. degree in electrical engineering as a University Scholar. After that, I applied to MIT again and was awarded a research fellowship in AeroAstro. Received my S.M. and Ph.D. degrees in Aerospace Engineering. Again, both for $0 in exchange for banging out a dozen or so peer-reviewed conference and journal papers.

Now I am an executive at SpaceX, 5 years after completing my Ph.D., making $425K, and now enrolled at Penn in the Wharton Executive MBA program…yet again for $0, thanks to my generous employer!

One bachelors, two masters, one doctorate, one Ivy, two T10 schools, one prestigious scholarship, and one prestigious research fellowship. All for $0?!? There’s no way I’m embarrassed for having attended GMU — it’s the icing on the cake, as it were. There’s only one catch: you actually need to be willing to work hard.

Only making $425k as a SpaceX executive?

DP,

VP is an executive position.
You should google salaries.
Too many people have highly unrealistic views of what people earn.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe there is a discussion between Stanford and GMU - yeah!!

I did GMU CS and its not a guarantee that a Stanford admit will dominate. We had people graduate from GMU and then go to Stanford, so I can gauge the quality of a Stanford admit. The top end of GMU is Stanford off-course but not a domination level.

That said - Stanford has the advantage of more opportunities. People look at a resume and Stanford will get you an interview. Mano a Mano - there are some GMU guys that hold their own.

Perhaps. We’re talking about a B.S. from GMU for $60K vs. a B.S. from Stanford for $360K. Stanford is 6X the price point of GMU. Is it six times as valuable? Entry level programmer with no experience from GMU could easily make $90K and get a job in a flash. Are we saying the same kid graduating from Stanford is going to make $540K?!? That’s preposterous. Not sure the ROI is there with Stanford. C, C++, and Java are the same languages no matter where you study. Books and reference materials are all the same.

Big difference is kids at GMU that excel do so because they’re exceptional and self-motivated. Kids at Stanford excel because they’re simply keeping up with the pack. Most people are lazy and need the external push you get at Stanford to be forced to succeed. Same kids that are coddled by underwhelming helicopter parents.

Go with GMU PP. Your DD sounds like a highly capable superstar as opposed to a false front DCUM poser.

So my bragging rights for GMU is that I graduated without debt. I got hired quicker than my "college town" higher ranked friends - GMU has a co-op/internship program next to DC really helped. GMU is a hidden gem that the local snobbery ignore. If you compare GMU vs any other school besides: MIT or Stanford - I'd agree hands down.

The only thing left out of the equation above is that the Silicon Valley guys are dominated with Stanford guys. They are snobs themselves and put their own above anyone else. And you are buying a $300K name on paper and hoping it pays out in the future.

I guess it depends on your goals - if you want to stay in this area and have a decent living GMU. if you want a VC with a shot at becoming insanely wealthy then Stanford? though this is a long-shot.

Applied to and was accepted at MIT but couldn’t afford to go since my parents had too much HHI but hadn’t actually saved anything for any of us for college. Instead, I attended George Mason University and spent $0 to get a B.S. degree in electrical engineering as a University Scholar. After that, I applied to MIT again and was awarded a research fellowship in AeroAstro. Received my S.M. and Ph.D. degrees in Aerospace Engineering. Again, both for $0 in exchange for banging out a dozen or so peer-reviewed conference and journal papers.

Now I am an executive at SpaceX, 5 years after completing my Ph.D., making $425K, and now enrolled at Penn in the Wharton Executive MBA program…yet again for $0, thanks to my generous employer!

One bachelors, two masters, one doctorate, one Ivy, two T10 schools, one prestigious scholarship, and one prestigious research fellowship. All for $0?!? There’s no way I’m embarrassed for having attended GMU — it’s the icing on the cake, as it were. There’s only one catch: you actually need to be willing to work hard.

Only making $425k as a SpaceX executive?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe there is a discussion between Stanford and GMU - yeah!!

I did GMU CS and its not a guarantee that a Stanford admit will dominate. We had people graduate from GMU and then go to Stanford, so I can gauge the quality of a Stanford admit. The top end of GMU is Stanford off-course but not a domination level.

That said - Stanford has the advantage of more opportunities. People look at a resume and Stanford will get you an interview. Mano a Mano - there are some GMU guys that hold their own.

Perhaps. We’re talking about a B.S. from GMU for $60K vs. a B.S. from Stanford for $360K. Stanford is 6X the price point of GMU. Is it six times as valuable? Entry level programmer with no experience from GMU could easily make $90K and get a job in a flash. Are we saying the same kid graduating from Stanford is going to make $540K?!? That’s preposterous. Not sure the ROI is there with Stanford. C, C++, and Java are the same languages no matter where you study. Books and reference materials are all the same.

Big difference is kids at GMU that excel do so because they’re exceptional and self-motivated. Kids at Stanford excel because they’re simply keeping up with the pack. Most people are lazy and need the external push you get at Stanford to be forced to succeed. Same kids that are coddled by underwhelming helicopter parents.

Go with GMU PP. Your DD sounds like a highly capable superstar as opposed to a false front DCUM poser.

So my bragging rights for GMU is that I graduated without debt. I got hired quicker than my "college town" higher ranked friends - GMU has a co-op/internship program next to DC really helped. GMU is a hidden gem that the local snobbery ignore. If you compare GMU vs any other school besides: MIT or Stanford - I'd agree hands down.

The only thing left out of the equation above is that the Silicon Valley guys are dominated with Stanford guys. They are snobs themselves and put their own above anyone else. And you are buying a $300K name on paper and hoping it pays out in the future.

I guess it depends on your goals - if you want to stay in this area and have a decent living GMU. if you want a VC with a shot at becoming insanely wealthy then Stanford? though this is a long-shot.

Applied to and was accepted at MIT but couldn’t afford to go since my parents had too much HHI but hadn’t actually saved anything for any of us for college. Instead, I attended George Mason University and spent $0 to get a B.S. degree in electrical engineering as a University Scholar. After that, I applied to MIT again and was awarded a research fellowship in AeroAstro. Received my S.M. and Ph.D. degrees in Aerospace Engineering. Again, both for $0 in exchange for banging out a dozen or so peer-reviewed conference and journal papers.

Now I am an executive at SpaceX, 5 years after completing my Ph.D., making $425K, and now enrolled at Penn in the Wharton Executive MBA program…yet again for $0, thanks to my generous employer!

One bachelors, two masters, one doctorate, one Ivy, two T10 schools, one prestigious scholarship, and one prestigious research fellowship. All for $0?!? There’s no way I’m embarrassed for having attended GMU — it’s the icing on the cake, as it were. There’s only one catch: you actually need to be willing to work hard.

Sounds like you are still paying catch up in your 30s, but lack the self-awareness to realize it. Since you are insecure enough to tout your credentials on an anonymous message board, and remain such a striver, I think you unwittingly make an excellent case for Stanford.

Anonymous wrote:There's a reason millions of international students want to study in the US and a fraction of US students want to study abroad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe there is a discussion between Stanford and GMU - yeah!!

I did GMU CS and its not a guarantee that a Stanford admit will dominate. We had people graduate from GMU and then go to Stanford, so I can gauge the quality of a Stanford admit. The top end of GMU is Stanford off-course but not a domination level.

That said - Stanford has the advantage of more opportunities. People look at a resume and Stanford will get you an interview. Mano a Mano - there are some GMU guys that hold their own.

Perhaps. We’re talking about a B.S. from GMU for $60K vs. a B.S. from Stanford for $360K. Stanford is 6X the price point of GMU. Is it six times as valuable? Entry level programmer with no experience from GMU could easily make $90K and get a job in a flash. Are we saying the same kid graduating from Stanford is going to make $540K?!? That’s preposterous. Not sure the ROI is there with Stanford. C, C++, and Java are the same languages no matter where you study. Books and reference materials are all the same.

Big difference is kids at GMU that excel do so because they’re exceptional and self-motivated. Kids at Stanford excel because they’re simply keeping up with the pack. Most people are lazy and need the external push you get at Stanford to be forced to succeed. Same kids that are coddled by underwhelming helicopter parents.

Go with GMU PP. Your DD sounds like a highly capable superstar as opposed to a false front DCUM poser.

So my bragging rights for GMU is that I graduated without debt. I got hired quicker than my "college town" higher ranked friends - GMU has a co-op/internship program next to DC really helped. GMU is a hidden gem that the local snobbery ignore. If you compare GMU vs any other school besides: MIT or Stanford - I'd agree hands down.

The only thing left out of the equation above is that the Silicon Valley guys are dominated with Stanford guys. They are snobs themselves and put their own above anyone else. And you are buying a $300K name on paper and hoping it pays out in the future.

I guess it depends on your goals - if you want to stay in this area and have a decent living GMU. if you want a VC with a shot at becoming insanely wealthy then Stanford? though this is a long-shot.

Applied to and was accepted at MIT but couldn’t afford to go since my parents had too much HHI but hadn’t actually saved anything for any of us for college. Instead, I attended George Mason University and spent $0 to get a B.S. degree in electrical engineering as a University Scholar. After that, I applied to MIT again and was awarded a research fellowship in AeroAstro. Received my S.M. and Ph.D. degrees in Aerospace Engineering. Again, both for $0 in exchange for banging out a dozen or so peer-reviewed conference and journal papers.

Now I am an executive at SpaceX, 5 years after completing my Ph.D., making $425K, and now enrolled at Penn in the Wharton Executive MBA program…yet again for $0, thanks to my generous employer!

One bachelors, two masters, one doctorate, one Ivy, two T10 schools, one prestigious scholarship, and one prestigious research fellowship. All for $0?!? There’s no way I’m embarrassed for having attended GMU — it’s the icing on the cake, as it were. There’s only one catch: you actually need to be willing to work hard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe there is a discussion between Stanford and GMU - yeah!!

I did GMU CS and its not a guarantee that a Stanford admit will dominate. We had people graduate from GMU and then go to Stanford, so I can gauge the quality of a Stanford admit. The top end of GMU is Stanford off-course but not a domination level.

That said - Stanford has the advantage of more opportunities. People look at a resume and Stanford will get you an interview. Mano a Mano - there are some GMU guys that hold their own.

Perhaps. We’re talking about a B.S. from GMU for $60K vs. a B.S. from Stanford for $360K. Stanford is 6X the price point of GMU. Is it six times as valuable? Entry level programmer with no experience from GMU could easily make $90K and get a job in a flash. Are we saying the same kid graduating from Stanford is going to make $540K?!? That’s preposterous. Not sure the ROI is there with Stanford. C, C++, and Java are the same languages no matter where you study. Books and reference materials are all the same.

Big difference is kids at GMU that excel do so because they’re exceptional and self-motivated. Kids at Stanford excel because they’re simply keeping up with the pack. Most people are lazy and need the external push you get at Stanford to be forced to succeed. Same kids that are coddled by underwhelming helicopter parents.

Go with GMU PP. Your DD sounds like a highly capable superstar as opposed to a false front DCUM poser.

So my bragging rights for GMU is that I graduated without debt. I got hired quicker than my "college town" higher ranked friends - GMU has a co-op/internship program next to DC really helped. GMU is a hidden gem that the local snobbery ignore. If you compare GMU vs any other school besides: MIT or Stanford - I'd agree hands down.

The only thing left out of the equation above is that the Silicon Valley guys are dominated with Stanford guys. They are snobs themselves and put their own above anyone else. And you are buying a $300K name on paper and hoping it pays out in the future.

I guess it depends on your goals - if you want to stay in this area and have a decent living GMU. if you want a VC with a shot at becoming insanely wealthy then Stanford? though this is a long-shot.

Applied to and was accepted at MIT but couldn’t afford to go since my parents had too much HHI but hadn’t actually saved anything for any of us for college. Instead, I attended George Mason University and spent $0 to get a B.S. degree in electrical engineering as a University Scholar. After that, I applied to MIT again and was awarded a research fellowship in AeroAstro. Received my S.M. and Ph.D. degrees in Aerospace Engineering. Again, both for $0 in exchange for banging out a dozen or so peer-reviewed conference and journal papers.

Now I am an executive at SpaceX, 5 years after completing my Ph.D., making $425K, and now enrolled at Penn in the Wharton Executive MBA program…yet again for $0, thanks to my generous employer!

One bachelors, two masters, one doctorate, one Ivy, two T10 schools, one prestigious scholarship, and one prestigious research fellowship. All for $0?!? There’s no way I’m embarrassed for having attended GMU — it’s the icing on the cake, as it were. There’s only one catch: you actually need to be willing to work hard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe there is a discussion between Stanford and GMU - yeah!!

I did GMU CS and its not a guarantee that a Stanford admit will dominate. We had people graduate from GMU and then go to Stanford, so I can gauge the quality of a Stanford admit. The top end of GMU is Stanford off-course but not a domination level.

That said - Stanford has the advantage of more opportunities. People look at a resume and Stanford will get you an interview. Mano a Mano - there are some GMU guys that hold their own.

Perhaps. We’re talking about a B.S. from GMU for $60K vs. a B.S. from Stanford for $360K. Stanford is 6X the price point of GMU. Is it six times as valuable? Entry level programmer with no experience from GMU could easily make $90K and get a job in a flash. Are we saying the same kid graduating from Stanford is going to make $540K?!? That’s preposterous. Not sure the ROI is there with Stanford. C, C++, and Java are the same languages no matter where you study. Books and reference materials are all the same.

Big difference is kids at GMU that excel do so because they’re exceptional and self-motivated. Kids at Stanford excel because they’re simply keeping up with the pack. Most people are lazy and need the external push you get at Stanford to be forced to succeed. Same kids that are coddled by underwhelming helicopter parents.

Go with GMU PP. Your DD sounds like a highly capable superstar as opposed to a false front DCUM poser.

So my bragging rights for GMU is that I graduated without debt. I got hired quicker than my "college town" higher ranked friends - GMU has a co-op/internship program next to DC really helped. GMU is a hidden gem that the local snobbery ignore. If you compare GMU vs any other school besides: MIT or Stanford - I'd agree hands down.

The only thing left out of the equation above is that the Silicon Valley guys are dominated with Stanford guys. They are snobs themselves and put their own above anyone else. And you are buying a $300K name on paper and hoping it pays out in the future.

I guess it depends on your goals - if you want to stay in this area and have a decent living GMU. if you want a VC with a shot at becoming insanely wealthy then Stanford? though this is a long-shot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone got in from DC’s school who has several patents pertaining to insects and has developed a novel mosquito repellent and is an amateur blacksmith etc etc. It’s kind of ridiculous.

Sounds super contrived to me. The 'unique' interests, passion projects, etc. almost seem comical and trite. Rarely genuine. Do admissions people really believe it or see through this stuff? I know a kid who, at the recommendation of a private counselor, spent years cultivating a niche environmental science topic with 'published research' for their college profile. The counselor created the plan and they were coached on the entire process. - but it worked because they are now at Duke! Just makes me skeptical when I hear things like this...

Sorry your kid was rejected.

No skin in this game...just reacting to the trends. Finding it both entertaining and ridiculous

The alternative is to pick based on standardized test scores like the rest of the world. But that would be horrible so we end up valuing the ability to row a boat in college admissions.

The rest of the world doesn't SAT and ACT. They use knowledge-based exams, similar to GRE Subject tests.

The baccalaureate and similar tests in Europe
The gaukao and similar tests in Asia
The PAA and similar tests in Latin America
The CUET in India.

These are all standardized tests.
The

And you'll notice that over the past 70 years almost all of the significant innovation and creativity that has occurred on this planet has been brought forth by people with degrees from American universities. But sure, celebrate your Indian and Chinese standardized tests. In the meantime, there is no chance American universities will ever abandon 'holistic" admissions. It's been far too successful to ever change.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone got in from DC’s school who has several patents pertaining to insects and has developed a novel mosquito repellent and is an amateur blacksmith etc etc. It’s kind of ridiculous.

I really don’t see why this person should be at an elite school for just being weird. Like these aren’t interesting or impressive ECs to me, just strange ones

Hello?!? They want innovators and big thinkers. Not kids who have been programmed to get perfect test scores. This isn't hard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The world needs more Stanford-educated blacksmiths.

You're not wrong. The VC douchebags that Stanford produces these days aren't exactly making the world a better place. The ability to make a good horseshoe would be a better skill set than the parasites that Stanford is producing these days. And I say that as someone with three generations that went to Stanford. It is not what it once was.

How about Elizabeth Holmes? Another world-changer!!!

she never graduated

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stanford wants to admit students who will change the world - more creative or unusual, if not an athlete.

Yes, sure. We don't need a ChatGPT bot statement like that.

It’s literally what their AOs have said. You can choose to ignore them, but they have made it fairly clear that perfect/near perfect SATs, Olympiad medals, and robotics do not really move the needle. A student with such a profile is wasting their ED/REA opportunity with Stanford.

My kid was rejected REA from Stanford a couple of years ago. 1600/4.0.

Rd — accepted to MIT and Harvard.

We are in Massachusetts so we are pretty sure it was yield protection. They knew my kid would be accepted by MIT or Harvard and would go there. Yield matters for rankings. Stanford brags they reject the perfect kids …. Because they know the perfect SAT/GPA are going to have choices and are not going to yield as it’s not ED.

So I really want to encourage those whose kids were rejected this year to tell your kids to not give up hope. Apply to the Ivies and/or MIT. Good luck!

I don't think Stanford is yield protecting. These days people want to go to Stanford more than Harvard or MIT.

Stanfords formula is very different from Harvards. They are not looking for the same kid (9 times out of 10).

Whats the difference in what they’re looking for? The admits, other than recruited athletes, seem similar.

I think they are a mashup of MIT and Harvard with better athletics mixed in.

Anonymous wrote:Go to Stanford. She might not want to go to law school after all. The students she will be surrounding herself with at Stanford will challenge her and push her to grow in ways that George Mason possibly could not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rejected. 1590, Math Olympiad awards, on a top ranked robotics team. Literally don't know what more they could've wanted.

DC's friend too. Finalist for the largest science competition in America (you know the one...) + math awards + published research (and not the BS kind) + 1590 + 96 UW GPA with top rigor. Rejected. What else is there??

They will get some good RD results with those stats.