<p>datalook is back! O___O</p>
<p>Some time has passed since the last discussion in this old thread. I would appreciate current opinions on MIT vs Stanford for Maths & Computer Science.</p>
<p>A couple of other angles that I am especially interested in :</p>
<p>(1) Is it kind of true that MIT is more of a pressure-cooker kind of environment with lots of intensely academic people which can sometimes lead to unhealthy competition and pressures? </p>
<p>(2) For a family with high assets (in stocks) and low income, which is likely to give greater financial aid?</p>
<p>(3) If one definitely wants to go on to Ph.D. program after undergraduate studies, which one would be better?</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
<p>1) Definitely not true of MIT. Indeed, MIT does a great deal to reduce pressures. The reason that your first term is pass-fail is to reduce the pressure on acclimatising students. There are also no classes of degrees at MIT. You cannot graduate from MIT “summa cum laude” for example. You either have an MIT degree or you do not. Indeed, as has been discussed on this board before, many problem sets are designed to be done in groups. This is not calculated to build pressure. From my observation, almost all of the pressure at MIT was generated from within, with students striving to excel, but MIT goes out of its way to avoid a “pressure-cooker” environment.</p>
<p>2) It’s totally unclear. FA is calculated differently at different schools. Stamford has a few features in its FA, that are very different from MIT. For example, MIT guarantees to meet a student’s full financial need for all for years for all students including international students. MIT also operates need-blind admissions for all students, including international students. Stamford does not. That being said, because Stamford does not make these expensive promises to international students they might or might not make you a more generous offer. Also, all of MIT’s FA is need-based. MIT does not consider any factor in determining aid apart from ability to pay. By contrast, although most of Stamford’s FA is need-based, a portion of it is also merit-based. Again, your mileage may vary.</p>
<p>3) What gets you into a PhD program is evidence of skill at research. This is true whether your field is biochemistry or renaissance literature. I would put MIT’s UROP program at the top of the tree when it comes to undergraduate research opportunities. But at either institution, you should have opportunities to get involved in real research if a PhD is your ultimate goal.</p>
<p>honestly this is a stupid thread. </p>
<p>the two schools have very little in common aside from being elite academic institutions. </p>
<p>which one is ‘better’ depends entirely on the individual student and the community to which they would prefer to belong. </p>
<p>that answer is going to be different for every single student.</p>
<p>Actually, I don’t think this thread is stupid. If it is about discussing which is “better” in a general sense, then, I agree that it depends on the individual and there is really no clear answer. Instead, I take the purpose of this thread to be seeking information about, and discuss, what the differences between the two schools are. That kind of information can help someone decide which might be a better fit for that person.</p>
<p>That said, let me come to issue 3 above regarding someone who is sure about pursuing Ph.D. after undergrad: As I understand, at Stanford (at least in CS), one directly moves to the PhD program after B.S., but, at MIT, one will have to do a Masters thesis along the way. Right? Does that mean the total time from undergrad to PhD will in general be longer at MIT?</p>
<p>Huh? Pretty sure you do not need a master’s to be accepted to the MIT EECS PhD program. If a master’s thesis is required en route to PhD, it does not imply a longer time. That would be like saying doing an undergrad thesis means graduating later or so.</p>
<p>Remark - working in groups can make someone feel dumb if everyone else is more competent at the task at hand. Can…not should.</p>
<p>Also honestly these are both tops in CS. Asking whether there is grade deflation is better than asking which has a hard workload. Obviously they will both be extremely serious programs.</p>
<p>
Very broadly speaking, most PhD programs are constructed as ~2-year master’s programs with ~4-year PhD programs following. Some schools don’t go so far as to actually award the master’s degree, but just have a ~6-year PhD program. It all works out in the wash.</p>
<p>Factors like personal motivation, choice of advisor, and research project will have a much greater effect on time to PhD than the program will.</p>
<p>Also, AFAIK both MIT and Stanford offer five-year co-terminal bachelor’s/master’s programs for EECS undergrads.</p>
<p>EDIT: It is, though, significantly putting the cart before the horse to think about Stanford vs. MIT for undergrad based on the policies of the respective PhD programs. Both schools will provide an excellent springboard for graduate studies; there’s no need to pick one school and stay there through the PhD unless you want to. There are plenty of Stanford undergrads at MIT for graduate school and vice versa.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To put the following twist – these are top PhD programs, and the criteria for getting into undergrad and graduate school are different, whence one can hardly count on it. Unless a star, in which case either school will serve fine.</p>
<p>Research experience is hugely important for many CS programs, but I can’t imagine either of these schools being bad for that, and I think despite the subtle differences in CS, grad program structure, etc, as MITChris says, there might be more meaningful considerations, given they’re two very different places that can give top opportunity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Two things: </p>
<p>1) I learned something new, that AFAIK = As far as I know</p>
<p>2) I assume Mollie is sure MIT does, and Stanford definitely does offer such a degree too.</p>
<p>Yes, I’m sure MIT does. 
And I knew Stanford had co-terminal masters in some fields, but didn’t know whether EECS was one of them.</p>
<p>They don’t have a separate program called EECS, but rather in EE and CS separately, so that’s one difference – those guys have a coterminal master’s option.</p>
<p>Reading through another thread on CC, I came to know that in at least engineering disciplines, a significant portion of the grad students at MIT are from MIT’s undergrad programs and there is some amount of preference at MIT for their own undergrads when it comes to grad program admissions. Is a similar preference present at Stanford as well for Stanford undergrads?</p>
<p>Hi, I was accepted to Stanford (my first choice) EA and decided not to apply to MIT (my second choice). I have another friend who is applying to both RD, and whose first choice is MIT. </p>
<p>I feel that MIT would have given me a [marginally] better education than Stanford, but I would be happier at Stanford. Isn’t your quality of life also an important consideration? I love the location, the people, and most of all the band at Stanford. I don’t think I would have been as successful in the ultra-competitive environment at MIT.</p>
<p>plus, I’m not interested in engineering- just plain old molecular biology. I think there are fewer people at MIT doing pure science than engineering, but the ratio is reversed at Stanford.</p>
<p>Sometimes I feel like I made the wrong decision, mostly because Stanford is going to make me do a bunch of pointless humanities. Oh well, it’s too late now.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I probably wouldn’t either. Good thing an ultra-competitive environment doesn’t exist at MIT.</p>
<p>Stanford is a great place, and I’m sure you’ll be happy and do well there.</p>
<p>Just to correct a minor misapprehension:
There are fewer people majoring in science at MIT than those majoring in engineering, but there are still plenty of pure scientists – the School of Science awarded 378 degrees in 2008 (out of 1217 degrees awarded total). So a little more than a third of MIT students get a degree in a pure science field (because there are only ~1050 students per class).</p>
<p>MIT is really great for both engineering and for pure science. Even for plain old molecular biology majors (like me).</p>
<p>Yeah, nobody should make the mistake of thinking MIT is only strong in applied fields. Sure, the undergrads may gravitate towards it, but for instance their pure math should make most any enthusiast drool. Not to perpetuate stereotypes that may or may not exist about such enthusiasts of course…</p>
<p>LNSebstian said above : "Sometimes I feel like I made the wrong decision, mostly because Stanford is going to make me do a bunch of pointless humanities. Oh well, it’s too late now ".</p>
<p>From the point of view having to take humanities courses, is there really any difference between MIT and Stanford? My understanding is that you will have to take them at MIT as well.</p>
<p>One thing that might help specifically about question 2:</p>
<p>At MIT, the “hacker” mentality in EECS is especially common. If you like hacker culture, dang, you’ll probably love it here. BTW, By hacking, I mean something much more broad than computer security.</p>
<p>^ I’ll note that people-who-break-into-secure-computer-systems are called “crackers”, not “hackers”. A hacker is, broadly speaking, just someone who programs - not necessarily for dark purposes ^^</p>
<p>To increase confusion, people who go around exploring campus and pulling clever pranks are also called hackers.</p>
<p>Stanford is great,but it can’t compete with MIT.MIT is the PERFECT engineering school.</p>
<p>^ If it can’t compete with MIT, why do all the NRC rankings–old and new–show that Stanford and MIT are neck-and-neck in most engineering disciplines, among many other science disciplines? Not to mention every other ranking of engineering. ;)</p>