nevermind

And what influenced your decision?

oasis

Yes. And actually a lot of others from my summer program (Summer Science Program, Ojai 2006) did.

I guess I always had a bias towards MIT since I've been to Mathcamp and SSP (where MIT was like THE place to be. We used to joke about meeting up again at MIT after camp ends). But at the end, I thought for at least two weeks about whether to go to Stanford or MIT.

I don't think it's fair to compare the academical qualities of the two institutions, because in my mind, both of them are intellectual powerhouses and I don't think I'm that brilliant to discern a difference in the education offered by the two schools. I mean, it's not like I'm going to say, "Well, I chose ____ because OBVIOUSLY, Professor so-and-so in blah department is definitely a rising star in his field, and it would be awesome to study underneath him..." I know some of the more informed CCers would be shaking their heads at this point, but I really don't mind the academics at either school to a degree that it really influences my final decision.

So what made all the difference?

Two big things: location and people. Although Boston winters are notoriously cold, I really like the setting of MIT. Charles River is gorgeous, and MIT's actually in a place with people! Boston aside, BU and Harvard are within walking distance from MIT. Moreover, I just like the "east-coast" aura.

Sure, Stanford gets all of the sun, but I think it's really a bit too remote - Stanford people only see Cal students, and San Francisco is around 20 minutes away. I mean, location isn't supposed to make that big of a difference, but....

The biggest thing, however, was perhaps the people. I already knew a couple of students at MIT when I applied, and they were so enthusiastic about telling me about MIT. When I visited three years ago, they led me on a tour of the place and I felt really at home when I stayed in their dorm. After acceptance, MIT surprised me with its warmth in reaching out to prefrosh (both in the form of alumni and current students), while Stanford pretty much just sent generic letters and customary material. This might not sound like it's anything big, but these little things really make a mark when you're considering which school to attend.

Hai. My reasons all sound so inconsequential, but really, these were the factors that influenced my decision. After I stopped evaluating the academics, I figured I should pick a place where I'd feel at ease for the next four years. My previous experience and new encounters with MIT hinted that it was the right place for me, so I ticked the box on the admission confirmation form.

Bleh, it's different for everyone. They are both great institutions - pick the one that you think you'll be happy at.

ps. I'm discovering more and more of MIT every day (that I had no clue about when applying and deciding) and I'm excited! =p

KnightMair

I turned down Stanford for MIT. There's a really long story, but it came down to the fact that while I loved Stanford, I figured that I knew it a little too well, having spent four of my last seven summers there for various academic and athletic programs. It was way too close to home (I live 30 minutes away), something I thought I'd like, but I realized I'd enjoy some independence, distance from my parents (who I still love dearly, of course :P), etc. Academically, MIT wins by a hair for my intended major, Computer Science, and the Boston area is much friendlier to college students than the Stanford area is.

On the flip side, Stanford is close to home, and the pros of that cannot be denied -- going home for food, visiting friends, family, etc, especially since the vast majority of my close high school friends will be attending UC Berkeley. The weather is awesome, the athletics (football notwithstanding) are much better and fun to root for, and the campus is drop-dead beautiful, paralleled only by Princeton, a school that I ruled out early on because of its location and relatively "poor" (term used VERY loosely) engineering programs compared to MIT and Stanford, my other two choices. Stanford had been my dream school since 5th grade, when I first visited, but over the past half-year, after really reading a lot of online information from the admissions blogs, talking to current students, etc, I realized that MIT would be an excellent place to pursue my undergrad education.

Ew, this is starting to sound like MIT propaganda. Not my intention, really, but you can see how MIT pretty much has me sold right now. Of course, when I get there in the fall and start failing classes, I might view things a bit differently, lol.

Hriundeli

A lot of people ended up at MIT from Socorro campus, as well.
'06 has been a good year for SSP...

datalook

"Academically, MIT wins by a hair for my intended major, Computer Science"

Come on. Stanford kicks MIT's ass in computer science. No matter whether you look at the Turing award ties, the great IT inventions, or the contribution to IT industry, Stanford wins hands down.

FredFredBurger

Look at the data, data look.

Actually, MIT does win by a hair for his inteded major, Computer Science. Though obviously they are very close and both extremely elite in Compsci so I doubt this was a real factor in Knight's decision.

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandre...ps05_brief.php

Hrteeexz

That's a ranking of Computer Engineering, not Computer Science. Two different fields.

I think it's very fair to say that both schools are matched in Computer Science. Stanford definitely does not "kick MIT's ass" in CS (or vice versa) and, if there actually is any difference in academic caliber between their two departments, its negligible and should most definitely not be the defining factor in choosing one school over the other.

1MX

Just putting my two sense in...

MIT obviously has a slight edge in math/science fields while stanford has the edge in humanities. Don't forget that you can take classes at other boston universities for no charge. So, if there is a class at harvard you really like; it's just down the street pretty much. In my mind, that's the reason I am deciding not to even bother applying to Stanford, but rather taking MIT and harvard, and hoping I get into at least one of them.

llpitch

^ cents?

And CS at MIT and Stanford are the best in the nation at both so there would have to be other reasons you would choose one over the other.

datalook

http://www.businessweek.com/1997/25/b353223.htm

http://www.stat.tamu.edu/~jnewton/nr...gs/area29.html

datalook

Great IT companies founded by Stanford: HP, cysco, yahoo, google, SUN. Don't think MIT can match that.

datalook

not easy to prove it. I tend to think it is the opposite.

molliebatmit

For those who haven't been around long, check datalook's past posts. These points have been argued on multiple occasions between datalook and sakky.

For my part, while I understand that a lot of people are probably getting excited about applying to both MIT and Stanford right now, at this point in the year, it's more important just to get excited about both schools. It's okay not to have a favorite school right now -- better to get excited about MIT, Stanford, and a nice selection of other schools, at least until early April.

Hrteeexz

Thinking that cross-enrolling at Harvard will compensate for MIT's limited humanities program is a highly misguided and - I don't mean to offend or pick fights here - a naive assumption. What you miss while foregoing even applying to Stanford is interaction with the actual humanities students themselves. And, after speaking with countless students from most of the top schools, the interaction and relationships you develop with your classmates are so much more important than anything you could possibly learn in a class.

And this is what did it in for me and made me realize MIT just isn't for me.

The decision between Stanford and MIT really boils down to the type of student you are. At MIT, the overwhelming majority of students are interested in science/engineering, and will most likely pursue a career revolving around these disciplines. Not to suggest that the MIT student body is strictly homogeneous, and that everyone there is just a science nerd, which of course isn't true, but there is indeed less academic diversity than at Stanford. And, while I'm an uber geek for math/science and will probably study engineering at Stanford, I wanted to be around bright students who thought differently than I did. I wanted to expand my realm of thinking, create social networks for the future outside of my fields, and so become acquainted with future politicians and lawyers and writers and diplomats and journalists and historians. Alums I've talked to almost unanimously attribute their most exciting times in college to moments where they would step out of their comfort zone and learn something totally new, and I personally felt Stanford facilitated this idea better than MIT.

I'll be a techie above all, and Stanford is, along with MIT, the foremost school for science and engineering in the country, so it's not like anyone's academic opportunities relating to their primary techie focus will be compromised in any way.

However, some people just won't really take advantage of such an environment, and are simply more comfortable interacting with similarly-passionate students.

Some may find living with like-minded individuals empowering, in which case nothing can beat MIT's ubiquitous nerd culture. But others may find it limiting. Like me.

So really, it depends on who you are. But you've got your priorities ALL messed up if you think cross-enrolling in Harvard humanities classes will somehow round out the MIT experience to your liking.

collegealum314

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MIT Leads in Revolutionary Science, Harvard Declines

Bruce G Charlton writes
"In three studies looking at the best institutions for 'revolutionary' science, MIT emerged as best in the world. This contrasts with 'normal science' which incrementally-extends science in pre established directions."
If you're interested in reading more about how this was determined, read more below...

My approach has been to look at trends in the award of science Nobel prizes (Physics, Chemistry, Medicine/ Physiology and Economics — the Nobel metric) — then to expand this Nobel metric by including some similar awards. The NFLT metric adds-in Fields medal (mathematics), Lasker award for clinical medicine and the Turing award for computing science. The NLG metric is specifically aimed at measuring revolutionary biomedical science and uses the Nobel medicine, the Lasker clinical medicine and the Gairdner International award for biomedicine. MIT currently tops the tables for all three metrics: the Nobel prizes, the NFLT and the NLG. There seems little doubt it has been the premier institution of revolutionary science in the world over recent years. Also very highly ranked are Stanford, Columbia, Chicago, Caltech, Berkeley, Princeton and — in biomedicine — University of Washington at Seattle and UCSF. The big surprise is that Harvard has declined from being the top Nobel prizewinners from 1947-1986, to sixth place for Nobels; seventh for NFLT, and Harvard doesn't even reach the threshold of three awards for the biomedical NLG metric! This is despite Harvard massively dominating most of the 'normal science' research metrics (eg. number of publications and number of citations per year) — and probably implies that Harvard may have achieved very high production of scientific research at the expense of quality at the top-end."

http://science.slashdot.org/article....7/01/15/131256