Is MIT losing it?

[sakky]

<p>

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

</p>

<p>I don’t know - does that mean that you admit MIT is better than Stanford today? </p>

<p>

Check the NRC ranking again: <a href=“http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=1&gl=us[/url]”>http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...lnk&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.

</p>

<p>Uh, no, YOU check the NRC ranking again. You forgot Civil Engineering. Oopsies .</p>

<p><a href=“NRC Rankings in Each of 41 Areas”>NRC Rankings in Each of 41 Areas;

<p>Hence, it’s a 5-4 MIT victory. Would you like to play again? </p>

<p>

Whether it is radar or GPS, it is debatable who made more contributions

</p>

<p>Oh, so now it’s “debateable”. I seem to remember how you claimed in the past that GPS was all Stanford. What happened? </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>

<p>And let me ask you - whose ranked higher in the current USNews for engineering? You don’t want to challenge that, right?</p>