Anonymous wrote:Reachable BY CAR. Not that useful/relevant to most undergrads. Worth checking out during a college tour, maybe. Or a reason to vacation in the area. But not a way to choose a college.

Freshman can't have cars (there are ways around that), but in California folks drive. 50% of seniors have cars and UBER and LYFT are huge.

Reachable BY CAR. Not that useful/relevant to most undergrads. Worth checking out during a college tour, maybe. Or a reason to vacation in the area. But not a way to choose a college.

I’m no fan of Palo Alto social life per se, but it’s worth noting that San Francisco, Muir Woods and Half Moon Bay are all reachable within about an hour. Those are three amazing places that I recommend to everyone. The East Coast has some amazing urban spaces, but can’t compare to the west when it comes to natural beauty.

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that no one has pointed to anything that another school offers that Stanford doesn't offer other than geographic location.

Geographic location is important, of course, but there's nothing a school can do about that. Also, preferences as to school size, social life, D1 sports etc can vary so the fact that Stanford has it all may not be important to those who don't value aspects of the complete college experience.

Actually, we have. Get over yourself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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?

Ummmm well since you asked: the Internet was originally developed by the USG.

You think the USG does actual work? You really do sound like someone in DC. Totally clueless.

As a PP said, yes, the work was funded by the USG (like a huge percentage of research) but the work was done at Californian universities. Not just Stanford, also UCLA, etc. I wasn't giving full credit to Stanford.

And there was a bunch of stuff coming out of Berkeley. Like Unix, for example, which I don't expect will mean much to someone like yourself, but to those of us who know anything about the tech industry, it's a very big deal.

Uh. Do YOU know anything about the tech industry yourself? UNIX was originally developed by Bell Labs. Berkeley developed just one “flavor” of UNIX. Sun and others created other “flavors.”

Berkeley certainly fostered a lot of innovation though. You did get that part right.

Unix was developed at Bell Labs by Ken Thompson immediately after he graduated with both Bachelor and Masters from... Berkeley. He later returned to Berkeley to develop a specific “flavor” of it.

Interesting that no one has pointed to anything that another school offers that Stanford doesn't offer other than geographic location.

Geographic location is important, of course, but there's nothing a school can do about that. Also, preferences as to school size, social life, D1 sports etc can vary so the fact that Stanford has it all may not be important to those who don't value aspects of the complete college experience.

Anonymous wrote:Stanford- super boring suburban location. Feels very pre-professional. Too obsessed with Silicon Valley. It was #6 on my kids list and I didn’t disagree with his ranking. He ended up at Columbia which was #4 on his list and loves it there.

My alma mater. Great place. If your kid is there in the summer, make sure he goes to the jazz at Grants tomb. Columbia kids never go to Grants to,b, but it is wonderful.

Anonymous wrote:OP, if it’s the gold standard, then how do you explain why it’s not number one in every ranking of every undergrad and graduate program it offers?

It means they are very good at what they do, but not every school is trying to do that.

Honestly, it isn't on my radar. Even if my kid we're tha right caliber, it isn't a place he would pick.

1. We hate the suburbs.

2. We don't really like California.

3. Right now the t is more selective than some of the others, but that can chanbe. Different schools offer different things. For my money, the way to do,it is like Columbia or U of C, with a serious commitment to a liberal arts core before you worry about major.

4. That said, mission is important. What is the mission of Stanford? I know the mission of the land grant universities is to educate the people of their states, Andy do research that helps the people of their state. UW-Madison is the place where vitamin D research was discovered (which is in milk, now). Maybe that is the gold standard. For all I know, Iowa, a good solid school, is the gold standard if "gold" means "has a well articulated purpose, which is fulfilled at a reasonable cost to the fisc."

I think we all put too much effort stuff that doesn't matter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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?

Ummmm well since you asked: the Internet was originally developed by the USG.

You think the USG does actual work? You really do sound like someone in DC. Totally clueless.

As a PP said, yes, the work was funded by the USG (like a huge percentage of research) but the work was done at Californian universities. Not just Stanford, also UCLA, etc. I wasn't giving full credit to Stanford.

And there was a bunch of stuff coming out of Berkeley. Like Unix, for example, which I don't expect will mean much to someone like yourself, but to those of us who know anything about the tech industry, it's a very big deal.

Uh. Do YOU know anything about the tech industry yourself? UNIX was originally developed by Bell Labs. Berkeley developed just one “flavor” of UNIX. Sun and others created other “flavors.”

Berkeley certainly fostered a lot of innovation though. You did get that part right.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Can't speak for that PP but my DD didn't give it a glance because of: 1) Silicon Valley douche bro culture; and 2) suburban location. The weather is undeniably nice, though. She's headed to Columbia and loves everything about NYC.

This statement really says more about you than the students at Stanford, you know.

Really touched a nerve there. Why so sensitive?

Also, if you’re not in DC, why are you on a board obviously meant for people living in this region? Get off our site.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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?

Ummmm well since you asked: the Internet was originally developed by the USG.

You think the USG does actual work? You really do sound like someone in DC. Totally clueless.

As a PP said, yes, the work was funded by the USG (like a huge percentage of research) but the work was done at Californian universities. Not just Stanford, also UCLA, etc. I wasn't giving full credit to Stanford.

And there was a bunch of stuff coming out of Berkeley. Like Unix, for example, which I don't expect will mean much to someone like yourself, but to those of us who know anything about the tech industry, it's a very big deal.

Wow, you’re a real asshole.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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?

Ummmm well since you asked: the Internet was originally developed by the USG.

You think the USG does actual work? You really do sound like someone in DC. Totally clueless.

As a PP said, yes, the work was funded by the USG (like a huge percentage of research) but the work was done at Californian universities. Not just Stanford, also UCLA, etc. I wasn't giving full credit to Stanford.

And there was a bunch of stuff coming out of Berkeley. Like Unix, for example, which I don't expect will mean much to someone like yourself, but to those of us who know anything about the tech industry, it's a very big deal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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?

Ummmm well since you asked: the Internet was originally developed by the USG.

It was a U.S. government project (ARPANET), but work was done at universities, like many government projects, including UCLA and Stanford.

Ok, but to credit Stanford for the internet, which is what PP implicitly did, is just stupid.