Right, I don’t think the question is whether a person could do a successful startup with an MIT background. I think the question is whether the OP is more likely to get this “right-tail” outcome at S or at M considering who he is.
Probability of a successful startup at both places is so remote (most startups fail- even the ones started by MIT or Stanford grads) that to compare them seems illogical.
What’s the probability that a kid in his or her second year of ballet classes is going to end up as a principal at the Bolshoi or New York City Ballet company? What’s the probability that a 10th grader with a nice singing voice is going to win a Grammy?
4 Likes
Oh I agree 100%. Someone said above it’s like asking H vs. Y to become a supreme court justice. But I wanted to point out that saying “there are plenty of startups at MIT” wasn’t exactly targeted to what OP wanted to know. I do not think a so-called “right-tail” outcome is remotely likely, don’t get me wrong. I just think it’s less likely at MIT for the reasons I mentioned.
1 Like
Everyone goes in thinking they’re going to crush it profit wise. And these happen at many schools - but not many organizations.
It’s nice to say - I’ll have an immensely profitable company with little risk (left tail).
Or you can follow All-Birds - they pivoted from sucking to still sucking but saying shoes are out, AI is in and their stick went up 600% in one day There’s always that instead of having a profitable business.
I think I once heard of All-Birds - are those the washable sneakers?
1 Like
OP are you coming back here? Obviously both are great options. Personally I think even if you see yourself as quirky, you will find your people at Stanford. Silicon Valley is obviously very heavily startup oriented, but as many have mentioned in surely you know, the likelihood of getting all of the angel funding, talent, etc. is low. That said, if it’s your passion, go for it. My son loves startups and worked for a few. He was fortunate and lucked out in two of them, as they became unicorns. Two others did not succeed.
There’s quite a difference, IMO, between a unicorn offer Vs a Matt Deitke type offer. Stanford might be better for the former, but I think MIT might be better for the latter.
Maybe I’m reading a bit too much into your post, but I feel MIT would be a better social fit as Stanford, particularly among those aiming for found startups, can be socially intense.
When it comes to founding a startup, do you see yourself as the technical partner to a more socially savvy co-founder, or do you think you would connect and work better with a team of founders who are more similar to you (e.g. other campers)?
A Matt Deitke type offer would generally require you to get a PhD first (if only to get a longer runway than four years to produce world leading research), and I believe MIT’s flexibility in major requirements and credit by exam gives it the edge there. You might want to reach out to older IMO/IOI/IPhO camp/team alumni to see what the academic level and flexibility of these two universities is. Does Stanford also let students enroll in graduate classes as early as you would like (I’m pretty sure MIT does, at least in math)? Does the major matter for this? These are some of the questions you could be asking alumni and the departments at the universities.
But overall, because it’s impossible to predict which is better for the right tail outcome, I would look at less noisy data. If, after visiting both, you feel you would socially fit better in one location, I would go there, because that might indirectly increase your odds of finding your co-founder, or your dream research lab.
2 Likes
It’s quite common for undergraduates at Stanford to take graduate courses. ~40% of Stanford engineering school students do a coterminal master’s in which they simultaneously work towards a BS + MS degree. I did 2 of these, so I was simultaneously working towards 3 degrees – a BS + MS + MS. I finished the first 2 in under 4 years, partially because I took a good amount of college courses during HS. These college courses during HS included multivariable calculus + linear algebra, so I started at differential equations. Another student I knew in the neighboring SLE dorm started in graduate level math as a first quarter freshman.
I always wondered how those students meet their major requirements. And I also wonder if the CS department is as flexible (this goes for both Stanford and MIT)
If you mean students who start at advanced math levels, like many highly selective private colleges, Stanford has a wide variety of math sequences and possible starting points, with different levels of rigor to accommodate different students. It’s common to skip over single variable calculus via AP credit. It’s quite rare to skip beyond math 53/63CM/63DM = differential equations. However, I expect the few students who do so receive transfer credit from the college where they took such courses, which can count towards both major and minor requirements. This is what I did, receiving transfer credit for all courses I took at a SUNY while in HS.
CS is by far the most popular major within the engineering school and the primary driver for the previously listed stat of 40% of undergraduate engineering school majors pursuing a co-terminal masters. A graphic showing the distribution of co-terminal masters combination during 2025 is below. The left half in the light blue color are combinations that include a MS in Computer Science. Many of the most popular CS courses among undergrads are graduate level courses. As I recall, one of the graduate level AI courses had a record 1040 in class students enrolled in previous years, when Andrew Ng taught. The online version at Machine Learning Specialization - DeepLearning.AI lists 4.8 million enrolled. Note that I am calling 200-299 level classes as graduate level, although Stanford bulletin describes 200-299 courses as intended for both advanced undergraduates and graduate students.
To be clear, I’m not talking about undergrads taking grad level courses in their last two years of undergrad - I understand that’s quite routine at many schools - but rather undergrads who start taking grad level courses in their first two years, particularly when the major requires the (distinct) undergrad version of that course. E.g. does a student who takes CS 265 or 369O freshman year still need to take CS 161 due to 161 being a required core course?
This must vary by school. My DS16 still feels frustrated at having been made to take the introductory CS class despite having many HS courses/study beyond his 5 on the AP. However, this was at P not M or S.
1 Like
Some schools will allow you to take the exam for the course you wish to skip, and if you pass (usually with a reasonable grade), you are assumed to have met that requirement. No credit, but you are exempt frm taking it and can take other classes in its stead.
Hopefully, OP wasn’t turned off by the multiple sidebar conversations that have nothing to do with what they were asking, and will return to this thread.
4 Likes
I take your point, but if he intends to succeed in VC fundraising (let alone a “right-tail” outcome) and college life, he’ll have to be able to weather small conversational digressions among those he asks for help!
2 Likes
My earlier comment still applies. CS 161 is a prerequisite for CS 265. To skip CS 161, you need to take a CS 161 equivalent course prior to attending Stanford. Stanford typically gives transfer credit towards such courses, which count towards major requirements. This is how I skipped over courses at Stanford, including ones that were required for major. In short you need to take all the required courses for major, but don’t need to take them at Stanford.
As noted above, CS 265 is not the graduate version of CS 161. They are separate and sequential courses – CS 161 → CS 265. As best as I know, Stanford doesn’t have undergraduate and graduate versions of the same course, beyond crosslisting (same course with same students has different numbers, listed at graduate level in one department and undergrad level in other department). Instead undergrads may take graduate level courses, and graduate students may take undergraduate level courses. The latter may result in limited credits being counted towards degree. For example, undergrads must take CS 106 (intro to CS) for 5 credits. Graduate students are given the option to take it for as low as 3 credits.
While Stanford does not have different undergraduate and graduate versions of the same course as best as I know, they do have different course sequences and different level or rigor/acceleration options for different undergraduate course sequences. I touched on this with my earlier math 50/60CM/60DM comment earlier. Math 50 is standard sequence for multivariable calc, linear algebra, and differential equations. 60CM and DM are more rigorous versions that include proofs – CM = Continuous Methods, DM = Discrete Math. There are also other versions beyond this with more specialized purposes, such as incorporating Matlab.
1 Like
OP, you might find the data below interesting as you make this decision. From this analysis is appears that Stanford would be the winner. They also note that just over 1/3rd come from business/economics degrees versus 13% in engineering. But, 1/8 of the billionaire engineers also hold a business degree/MBA.
Yes, the distinction between graduate and undergraduate outcomes may be skewing this. I certainly wouldn’t quibble with a Stanford MBA being better than an MIT MBA for these sorts of outcomes.
2 Likes
First of all, congratulations!
On your phenomenal academic success, that is — not the admissions, that are, and should be, rightfully yours, and any school that doesn’t recognize that simply doesn’t deserve you.
In one aspect, there is only one place that is not like all the others: the number of peers you will meet there that are at your extreme right-tail level academically (which might also mean a better social fit).
This year, a UChicago student broke MIT’s stride by getting into Top 5 (the level you will be competing for:)
There are no Stanford students in the top 25 vs MIT’s 20 (these are your academic peers).
Going further down the ladder, there is only 5 Stanford students in the Top 100 vs MIT’s 58, and 12 in the Top 500 vs MIT’s 136 (this is your extended academic community).
These are very stark statistics. And I think they may be even more relevant to you than an average MIT admittee who has to decide if they want to be in the same room with these kinds of students. You ARE this kind of student.
I don’t know how many IMO-caliber students are at Stanford, but if there are any, they must be too busy founding startups;)
Do you know where your fellow Olympians are going? Statistically speaking, it is very likely to be MIT.
5 Likes