I was fortunate enough to receive offers from Stanford and MIT (waitlisted at H) and would like advice on which would maximize my chances at an extreme right-tail outcome (unicorn founder / Matt Deitke type offer). I recognize this post might come off as tone-deaf and am by no means trying to brag but any genuine insight from someone who has been faced with a similar choice would be hugely appreciated.
For context I am a US based student who medaled at one of IMO, IPHO, and IOI and attended the training camp for one of the other two (don’t want to doxx myself). I am looking to major in CS and Math.
I am fairly confident I have the background to achieve a “standard” right-tail outcome like quant or AI researcher, and if I don’t it will be due to my technical ability and not because I chose Stanford over MIT or vice versa.
I am really only interested in maximizing the very slim chance of an extreme right-tail outcome, so other factors (social life, location, weather, etc.) are only important to me in that context. Factors I’m considering:
Social Scene - I know Stanford’s location and proximity to the startup world is unmatched, but I am concerned that I won’t be able to fit in as well socially. If you couldn’t already tell, I am kind of autistic and I feel like at Stanford I would just be some nerdy kid whereas at MIT I could thrive more socially - this could lead to stronger and more numerous connections with potential co-founders / professors etc.
Industry Access - Another area where I feel Stanford has a slight edge, but more opportunities for research at MIT and deeper connections with professors could overcome this, again I’m not very informed on the specifics.
Quality of Instruction - This is the area I’m most unsure about. I’m not just interested in the quality of graduate or post-grad research, but also about the institution that best prepares undergrad students for the CURRENT industry landscape and how adaptable the departments at these unis are.
“Signalling” - Again, the difference here is marginal, but I’m sure there are subtle differences in how a Stanford versus MIT student is perceived. This might have an impact on my ability to raise money, attract talent, etc. although I’m sure it’s splitting hairs at this level.
Again, sorry if this comes off as a brag, I tend to overthink and I’ve been told by my parents for basically my entire life that the college you choose to go to will be the most important decision you make in your life, so I’m trying to choose carefully.
Quite low probability outcome in either case, but the odds are quite a bit higher at Stanford.
The startup and entrepreneurship culture permeates Stanford and all of Silicon Valley in a way that’s completely different than around Boston. You will find many people to bounce ideas off of, and people ready to form teams for a startup.
The venture capital environment is also better out west, with many top VC firms on Sand Hill Road, just a bike ride away from Stanford.
This is likely enabled by a California law that makes most employee non-compete agreements clearly unenforceable, unlike in most other states. Hence, employee mobility is greater in California, making it easier for startups to recruit existing employees from other companies without them having to sit out for months or years after leaving their old employer.
I’d posit you are asking the wrong question. It’s like choosing between Harvard and Yale law school to make sure you end up on the Supreme Court, i.e. the answer is “neither” since the odds are so small.
Why not focus on which place is going to give you the most rigorous and intellectually challenging experience (and only you can decide that) and then work on whichever opportunities you make or come your way?
I agree that Stanford and the surrounding area has more of a start-up culture (which means more failed startups than anywhere else since more fail than succeed). But the halls of MIT are filled with VC professionals patiently standing in line for a meeting with a research team, then heading off to the Tech Transfer office to figure out the logistics. And Kenmore Square (not Palo Alto, but pretty lively on its own) still has nascent companies renting five person lab space and three person office space until they get that second round of funding.
Stanford will offer you much more flexibility in exploring your options. Consider the interdisciplinary opportunities across many excellent departments (vs. the engineering vibe on MIT’s tiny campus), proximity to entrepreneurial alumni and the vast venture capital network around Menlo Park. The weather and the culturally diverse environment in NoCal could also be a plus.
I am in the slightly unusual situation that I have degrees from both of these school (bachelor’s at MIT, master’s at Stanford). I still find it hard to answer your questions. I am going to give my opinions some of which might be just my opinion and possibly a bit controversial.
From what you have said at least to me MIT and Stanford both look like better fits for you compared to Harvard, so your waitlist at Harvard might be that they were guessing the same thing. However, Harvard is also exceptional. At least you are stuck with two great choices, which might be easier than being stuck with three great choices.
Stanford is on the quarter system. MIT is on the semester system. At least when I was there it was typical to take four classes at a time at MIT, and to take five classes at a time at Stanford. The difficulty of classes is adjusted accordingly. Either one is a lot of work. You really do want to make a strong effort to stay ahead, and you should plan on doing some work on Saturday’s and Sunday’s at either school. At Stanford be aware that the end of the quarter might come up more quickly than you expect (assuming that you are used to the semester system). Personally I liked the quarter system better. Basically if you are so-so about a class it does not drag on as long. If you love a class then you take the next in the series next quarter. However, students can generally adapt to either.
MIT has a major 18C “Mathematics with Computer Science”. This is relatively close to what I did although the major did not officially exist when I was there (my degree just says “mathematics”). Stanford is of course very good for both math and computer science so either school would be exceptional, and academically demanding. By the way I think that this is a very good combination, and you will probably want to take at least one course in AI and/or machine learning as well (and these depend a lot on math and CS).
You might want to look at the course requirements for each school. Consider both major-specific requirements and general overall requirements. When I was at Stanford I liked the fact that every class was something that I wanted to take, but this was because I was a graduate student, nearly every class was in my major or a closely related field, and I liked what I was majoring in. Of course an undergraduate student needs to take more classes outside of their major.
I agree with other answers that the high tech and startup culture is stronger in Silicon Valley. I think that the engineers are equally excellent in either location. There is a different management style in Silicon Valley, more of a “do whatever works” mentality rather than a “fit the business model whether it works or not” mentality.
In terms of the quality of the professors I did not notice any difference between the two schools. I did have at least one bad professor, and many very good professors, at both schools. I also had at least a small number of professors at both schools who were in some sense at least a bit famous, although this really does not matter of course.
correct…
I think that there are nerdy kids at both schools. There will be lots of students who care about academic excellence at both schools. There will be a lot more students who are “like you” in ways that matter at each school. They might look different or be from some different part of the world or have piercings or tattoos, but they will care about things that you care about (like math and academic excellence).
There will be a lot of opportunities at both schools.
I think that this is difficult to predict. The venture capital community has been stronger in California. There are of course the venture capital people on Sand Hill Road right near Stanford. I am sort of wondering whether the proposed billionaire tax in California will change this. I do not know how to predict this.
However, being in on the founding of a successful startup is a long shot in any case. There are a lot of startups that fail, or that succeed in only a rather small way and get bought up. In the latter case the founders might make a bit, but might not be ready to retire rich. In some ways it might be better to have a startup fail quickly rather than have it drag on for years and sort of only barely existing. I have known people who ended up in the latter category and it is hard to know when to give up and walk away.
And predicting the future is tough and risky. However, a strong education in math and computer science definitely seems like one of the safest investments that you could possibly make right now.
genuine insight from someone who has been faced with a similar choice would be hugely appreciated.
I share some similarities including main HS EC being math related/contests (although nowhere near the success you have had), facing decision about whether to attend Stanford or MIT, being involved in a degree program at Stanford designed to foster tech entrepreneurship, starting a successful small Internet company (not what you’d consider “extreme right tail”), and being on spectrum.
You referenced an extreme right tail outcome as a $250M offer for tech start-up. This type of extreme outlier isn’t just a matter of talent. It often has more to do with luck and being in the right place at the right time. Even if you are in the right place and right time, with right studies/degree, … there are countless other variables right idea that appeals to the right people, with right funding, social media, marketing, initial employees/partners… For example, there was another student in my HS who was similarly talented in math as I was. He achieved a high level of success in tech career, including being involved with AI development. He also had a degree from Harvard. He created a startup doing what I perceive of as all the right things above, yet the startup failed badly almost immediately after launch. I’m sure everything he wrote was expertly designed and coded. The problem was instead his idea didn’t resonate with the general population as much as it did with him, and never took off. My point is it’s good to have a dream, but also good to have realistic expectations.
That said, I agree that with other posters that Stanford likely has more of a startup ecosystem than MIT. There are fundraising options both on and off campus, such as Cardinal Ventures. There are entrepreneurial groups like BASES with cash awards for most viable startup, start-up career fair attended by 1000+ students, “fireside chats” with successful startup founders, mentorship, etc. The specific program I did no longer exists. However, most of the core courses I took still exist, which include things like a class where each week the founder of successful tech startup, such as Yahoo, talks about their experiences and afterward has a Q&A, often leaving contact info. Students can also take MS&E at both graduate and undergrad level that more formally discuss the business aspects.
If by “kind of autistic”, you mean you what would have been called Asperger’s in the past, I’d expect there are going to be related social challenges at any college. My experience wasn’t a separation between “nerdy kids” and more outgoing social kids. Instead it was common for such groups to all interact with each other, particularly in freshmen dorm. In later years, some students preferred to interact with a more limited group that shared some type of similarity, while others do not. Again my experience wasn’t a nerdy / non-nerdy division. I did sometimes see divisions by other groupings. For example, the minority of kids that were highly conservative often found each other via activities like Stanford Review. Kids that had racial preferences sometimes chose one of the ethnic-themed dorms. Some athletes seemed to mostly hang out with other team members. I don’t have personal experience with MIT, but I do with taking classes at UCSD, a SUNY, RPI, Wyoming, and other colleges. Among all of these colleges, I found Stanford to be the most welcoming and socially friendly, particularly to high achieving and socially awkward kids.
To me (and I have experience at both places) you sound more like a Stanford person than an MIT person. There’s a certain MIT personality of not taking yourself too seriously even if you’re really, really excellent. I don’t read this in what shows on this thread. You mention trouble in social situations, which means people expecting more humility might be more irritated (and less likely to invest in your “right tail” idea) at MIT than at Stanford.
If you were founding a startup, wouldn’t that be a concern: that you’d spend all that time and money luring top talent, only to have them jump ship to the first large check-stroker to come calling? I’m not everyone, obviously, but I’d be constantly worrying about how on earth I could keep my team together… because nobody likes having to replace top talent.
In that sense, unless the OP is fine with that kind of “free agency” risk and the anxiety it might cause, I’d consider operating elsewhere. (if convenient/efficient/feasible)
The people willing to join startups may be less likely to leave for big companies offering big pay and benefits packages, because they joined startups in the first place.
But in an environment where employee non-compete agreements are enforceable, these employees may be unable to leave their current employers to join startups if they do not want to sit out months or years.
But you are assuming that a non-compete means “I can’t work”.
A properly crafted non-compete protects the employers intellectual property by prohibiting an employee who has access to “trade secrets” from taking that property (even inadvertently- you can’t “forget” what you’ve seen) to a direct competitor.
But that leaves the rest of the universe! If you are at a startup which is commercializing a paper strip infused with a chemical which can detect pancreatic cancer from saliva, it is highly unlikely that an engineer or R&D professional would sign a non-compete which would prohibit them for working at a company working on fabricated cardiac valves, or robotic limbs, or a wearable which treats schizophrenia with a smart cap. So one sector. Companies in the “diagnostic pancreatic cancer” space. Not anyone else.
Many fears of a non-compete are completely overblown.
However, if you are at a big company that does business in all of the above sectors (and more) and are subject to a non-compete that applies to all of those sectors, then the possible startups or other companies that you may go to is much more restricted than if you were at a company doing business in one niche area.
The fear that someone at a startup (which was the original premise) is going to be limited by a non-compete is generally overblown. By definition, startups don’t have multiple divisions, global reach, a wide variety of products and trade secrets.
You are reversing the scenario. A non-compete to may not be very restrictive for someone leaving a startup doing business in a limited area. But someone at a big company considering going to a startup will find a non-compete to be much more restrictive, and this can limit startups’ ability to recruit employees.
Please return to addressing the original poster. They didn’t ask about non-compete and it is by no means required to get in the last word on an off-topic conversation