Is MIT losing it?

[datalook]

<p>

But like I said, wouldn’t it be more relevant to find TODAY’s ranking? High technology changes so fast that a ranking of 10 years ago is quite irrelevant.

Does that mean you admit Stanford was better than MIT in high tech as of 1997?

Well, it seems to me that the NRC ranking that you constantly quote actually shows that MIT beats Stanford in terms of more highly ranked engineering categories. So already, the NRC does not support your assertions

Check the NRC ranking again: <a href=“http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:uuNggt96qBsJ:www.grad.berkeley.edu/publications/pdf/nrc_rankings_1995.pdf+nrc+ph.d+ranking,+stanford,+mit&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us[/url]”>http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:uuNggt96qBsJ:www.grad.berkeley.edu/publications/pdf/nrc_rankings_1995.pdf+nrc+ph.d+ranking,+stanford,+mit&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&lt;/a&gt;.
Stanford beats MIT in electrical engineering, computer science, mechanical engineering, and industrial engineering. MIT beats Stanford in materials science, biomedical engineering, chemical engineering, and Aerospace engineering. If you count the numbers, it looks like a 4 to 4 tie. But Stanford won the big 3 fields (EE, CS, ME). Anyway, let’s wait for the new NRC ranking.

Would this be the same analysis that made you convinced that Stanford has contributed more to GPS, a claim that you now have seemed to have withdrawn?

Whether it is radar or GPS, it is debatable who made more contributions. As for radar, Stanford engineers invented klystron, the foundation of radar, and the “over the horizon radar”. See the following links.
<a href=“http://www.stanford.edu/home/welcome/research/klystron.html[/url]”>http://www.stanford.edu/home/welcome/research/klystron.html&lt;/a&gt;
<a href=“You’ve requested a page that no longer exists | Stanford News”>You’ve requested a page that no longer exists | Stanford News;
<a href=“You’ve requested a page that no longer exists | Stanford News”>You’ve requested a page that no longer exists | Stanford News;
What is MIT’s fundamental inventions in radar? I don’t know.</p>

<p>As for GPS, MIT’s Ivan Getting made his contribution before 1960, after that, Bradford Parkinson (MIT master, Stanford Ph.d and long time Stanford professor) took it over. Over the years, Stanford’s GPS center has been the leader in GPS technology. Again, MIT has done little in GPS since 1970. It proves again that MIT was better in engineering before 1970, while Stanford has been better since 1970.</p>

<p>Finally, let me ask you again. Have you found how many Turing award winners are associated with MIT? Stanford has 18 ties without even counting the visiting professors. So Stanford has much more Turing award ties. You don’t want to challenge that. Right?</p>