<p>
</p>
<p>The differences in graduation rate are easily explained. Stanford’s co-terminal masters programs that allow undergraduates (who apply and are accepted by a department) to graduate in 5 years with a MA or MS can account for part of Stanford’s lower 4-year graduation rate and more similar 5-year rate. The differences in athletics might account for the (small) rest of the graduation difference.</p>
<p>Stanford vs Yale by majors</p>
<p>Biology: Stanford > Yale. US-News graduate ranking listed Stanford #1 with a peer assessment score 4.9, Yale #7 with a score of 4.5. The gap is not very big, but still significant.</p>
<p>Chemistry: Stanford is a top 5 program, along with Berkeley, Caltech, Harvard, and MIT. Yale ranked #11-#15</p>
<p>Physics: Stanford is a top 5 program. Yale is about #10</p>
<p>computer science: Stanford is #1. Yale is #15-#20.</p>
<p>math: Stanford is about equal to Yale in pure math. But Stanford > Yale in applied math.</p>
<p>English: Yale is a liitle better.</p>
<p>psycology: Stanford is #1. Yale is very good</p>
<p>economics: Stanford is top 5. Yale is #7</p>
<p>engineering: Stanford >>Yale. No competition here.</p>
<p>arts: Yale is better</p>
<p>NAS (National academy of sciences) membership is a good indicator of faculty reputation. Here is a partial NAS membership breakdown by major fields for Stanford and Yale.
(see [National</a> Academy of Sciences:](<a href=“http://www.nasonline.org/site/Dir/157634808?pg=rslts]National”>National Academy of Sciences))</p>
<p>Math: Stanford (5), Yale (3)
applied math: Stanford (8), Yale (2)
chemistry: Stanford (14), Yale (5)
Physics: Stanford (12), Yale (3)
applied physics: Stanford (2), Yale (4)
psycology: Stanford (9), Yale (2)
economics: Stanford (5), Yale (2)
geology: Stanford (4), Yale (1)
geophysics: Stanford (1), Yale (2)
engineering science: Stanford (8), Yale (0)
physiology and pharmacology: Stanford (2), Yale (4)
anthropology: Stanford (1), Yale (4)
computer science: Stanford (4), Yale (0)
sociology and politics: Stanford (7), Yale (1)
biochemistry: Stanford (5), Yale (6)
genetics: Stanford (11), Yale (1)</p>
<p>I love it when I’m right ;). Thanks for entering on your cue, datalook! (Soon posterX should be coming).
OP, please keep in mind that while he or she may deny so, datalook was rejected from Yale, and hates it.</p>
<p>Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if the first thing datalook does when he or she signs in to CC is go type “Stanford vs. Yale” in the search box.</p>
<p>Puhaha. xD</p>
<p>Trix-D,</p>
<p>Agree with you. Anybody saying Yale is not top at something must have been rejected by Yale. That is the famous logic invented by a group of Yale web surfers. Even though Yale people have never (or almost never) invented any technology to make the world better, they are good at inventing some logic that can spin the facts to make people dizzy.</p>
<p>Just a simple question for you. I am interested in learning applied science, why should I bother to apply for Yale?</p>
<p>All those stats are interesting in emphasizing the importance of the course of study that interests you. </p>
<p>Re: the silly post about the size of the library (as though that has any relevance in the internet age 
) I can share an experiene that overwhelmingly favors Stanford –</p>
<p>Freshman year at Stanford, 1975, my four year dorm (Loro), the senior engineering major in the room next to me had a small blue box about the size of an engagement ring box,. It was connected to the phone and had a small toggle switch out the top. I had noticed it a few times and finally asked him what it was. He told me he had inherited it from a student who had graduated the year prior, and that it fooled the phone company into opening long distance circuits at no charge. Remember this was a time when the AT&T monopoly priced a call from Palo Alto to Los Angeles was $1.20 per minute.</p>
<p>Flash forward to 1995. I’m watching a retrospective on Apple computer on TV. Steve Wozniak is being interviewed, along with Jobs. Woz recalls being in the Stanford stacks, bored, looking for something interesting in the Engineering section. He finds, in literally the last row, bottom shelf, last book in the library, the AT&T manual for (I think) the 5Ess switch. In the manual was the source code for the long distance switching.</p>
<p>So Woz created this little blue box to send a tonal signal signal to the AT&T long distance switch that fooled it into opening the circuit to any number in the world. Woz then called the Pope in Vatican City. doing his best Henry Kissinger impersonation. It worked for about five minutes before they caught onto him. that’s when I learned I was a year or two late in being Woz’ next door neighbor.</p>
<p>so, I ask, who has the better library? Who has the students best prepared to make the best use of the resources in the library? Who would you want as a roommate – Steve Wozniak or (fill in the name) at Yale?</p>
<p>P.S. In my visit to Yale in 1974, I visited a couple of freshmen from my high school. All they could talk about was how the Army said you needed four hours sleep, but at Yale they’ve proved you only need two. At Stanford I slept in.</p>
<p>Thanks for the agreement! xD</p>
<p>(Oh, and actually reading someone else’s post for once. I am now going to proceed to give you a taste of your own medicine and cleverly avoid that question you asked me. 
)</p>
<p>When I was visitng Yale during bulldog days, my host was actually a transfer student who had transferred out of Stanford. Nothing about academics or quality–it was just about not having the right ‘fit.’ Plus, she wanted to go to school in the Northeast, but had not gotten in to Yale as a senior.</p>
<p>Also note: datalook may or may not return to this thread because he or she has already “dealt the blow” by the four consecutive posting of replies with heavy pro-Stanford data. Will probably return only when a poster on the opposite spectrum, a pro-Yale and anti-Stanford, replies. In datalook’s head: “The deed is done, the job for the day is finished. Stanford has successfully been promoted once again!” </p>
<p>Can ya sleep with a smile on now? :)</p>
<p>a Yalie did too invent something. Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin, making slavery economically advantegous in north America. Oh and Yale also gave us g w bush.</p>
<p>And I suppose it goes without sati g that both schools are extremely difficult to get into (especially if “international” means Toronto instead of Tanzania). If you really want to go to the states for scho, you should look into other, “lesser” schools.</p>
<p>Honestly, shouldn’t your college choice depend on your major? As a previous poster said, if you are going for engineering you would easily pick Stanford, yet other programs might be better at Yale. That should be the most considered decision when making your final choice.</p>
<p>To Trix-D,</p>
<p>I don’t want to turn this thread into an argument between you and me. I know you are a Yalie. If my posts helped promoting Stanford, Stanford deserves it, because all my stats are solid facts, with official links. The US NEWS ranking for graduate is based on academic peer assessment (department deans and directors of graduate programs). They know the quality of each institution more than anybody on this thread, including you and me. If Yale doesn’t look so good in the stats and the rankings, it may suggest Yale is indeed lack of something. </p>
<p>To Metallica,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>NOT TRUE.</p>
<h1>US NEWS graduate school ranking results</h1>
<p>link:
[USNews.com:</a> America’s Best Graduate Schools 2008](<a href=“http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/rankindex_brief.php]USNews.com:”>http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/rankindex_brief.php)</p>
<p>Stanford > Yale in all science majors, including math, physics, chemistry, biology, earth science, and computer science. All Stanford’s science programs are top 3, while none of Yale’s programs are within top 5. The gap is big enough to say Stanford is significantly better, according to academic peers.</p>
<p>Stanford >> Yale in engineering. Almost nobody, except few Yalies like posterX, thinks otherwise. Stanford ranks #2. Yale ranks around #40. Stanford has 84 faculty members selected into the national academy of engineering, while Yale has only 6.</p>
<p>Stanford > Yale in business school. Stanford ranks #2. Yales is not in top 10.</p>
<p>Stanford > Yale in medical school. Stanford has more faculty members selected into the prestigious institute of medicine, more faculty members winning NIH pioneer award, even though Yale has a bigger medical school.</p>
<p>Stanford > Yale in social sciences and humanities. Stanford beats Yale in psycology, economics, political science, and sociology. Yale beats Stanford in English and history.</p>
<p>Yale > Stanford in law school. Yale is #1. Stanford is #3.</p>
<p>Stanford > Yale in school of education.</p>
<p>Yale > Stanford in arts.</p>
<p>Yale > Stanford in music.</p>
<p>Again, rankings are based on academic peers, who know better than anyone on this thread.</p>
<p>^^ wow, your vehemence is somewhat surprising.</p>
<p>Yale > Stanford for undergrad focus.</p>
<p>Stanford now has 20,000 students and 2x the # grads as undergrads, not to mention it’s a major research university. It’s hesitant to add 200 undergrads but has no qualms about adding 2,000 grads. I think it’s safe to say that Yale will probably give a more personal undergrad education.</p>
<p>I think you’re one of the few people who really thinks the difference of a few spots really matters. In addition, all your data is for grad school. And even then, it doesn’t matter a whole lot, since Yale has a much larger endowment than Stanford and has fewer students, so it can spend much more on them.</p>
<p>At any rate, given the direction this discussion is going, this thread is pointless.</p>
<p>“Yale > Stanford for undergrad focus.”</p>
<p>That is a legitimate point that seems to have been lost in the stats. Yale is really a large “small school”. That makes all the difference in the world for those students interested in collaborating with their professors.</p>
<p>datalook, what you need to understand is that US News is not some sort of inerrant truth. The most reputable rankings of (graduate) academic programs is done by the NRC. Sadly they haven’t come out with a ranking since 1995 (though the new one should be out in 2008). There are, of course, other rankings as well. Academic Analytics has produced a ranking based on faculty scholarly productivity. Though it’s far from perfect, it has as much validity as US News.
What you’ll find in it is a much more nuanced picture than you like to paint. Looking at biology, for instance (which is an extremely broad field with many subfields), you’ll find that Yale is stronger than Stanford in Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, Cell Biology, Epidemiology, Evolutionary Biology, Immunology, Neurobiology/Neuroscience, Pharmacology and Physiology while Stanford is stronger than Yale in Biochemistry, Biophysics, Developmental Biology, Genetics, Microbiology and Oncology/Cancer biology.
From this, one might well argue that it’s far from clear who is stronger in biology, and, moreover, when you take this to the undergrad level, the differences are small enough that other factors become controlling.
You’re right that Stanford’s stronger in the physical sciences, placing higher in Applied Physics, Chemistry, Computational Sciences, Computer Science, Physics and Statistics (though lower in Geology/Earth Sciences and Geophysics). But in the Social Sciences and Humanities (contrary to your inane claims otherwise), Yale is easily superior (I’m tired of listing out programs, so you’ll just have to accept my word here).
Of course, if you ask me, I’d say that the fact that basically anyone would tell you that Yale has the superior History or English program doesn’t mean that history majors should necessarily go to Yale over Stanford, because the differences are small enough not to matter at the undergrad level, and other factors should be far more important. I’d say the same in reverse about Physics or Chemistry.
You, however, are so obsessed with small differences in a meaningless and poorly designed ranking (US News) that you don’t see that these differences are in fact virtually meaningless for undergrads. Of course, if you’d like us all to adopt your simplistic view calling for total acceptance of US News, then remember what someone else pointed out to you (I think it was in a different thread). Your beloved US News ranks Yale better than Stanford in its undergrad rankings (and has almost every year). I think this difference is trivial and meaningless, but based on your reactions to other parts of US News, it should imply to you that Yale is better for undergrads, and thus anyone pursuing an undergrad education should choose Yale over Stanford. If this sounds overly simplistic and silly to you (as it should) then perhaps you should consider what that means for your reliance on US News’ other rankings.</p>
<p>The average cost of Yale for those receiving need-based grants is less than the average cost at Stanford.</p>
<p>Yalies graduate with less debt on average than Stanford students.</p>
<p>Yale has more classes under 20 students, and less classes over 50 students than Stanford even the student-faculty ratios are the same.</p>
<p>Datalook, I am honored that you think I am a Yalie!</p>
<p>That $14.95 you spent for USNews.com was the best purchase you ever made, eh? xD</p>
<p>FOR UNDERGRADUATE RANKINGS by Datalook’s BELOVED USNEWS</p>
<p>Yale: #3
Stanford: #4</p>
<h1>To Trix-D,</h1>
<p>I never bought any issue of US-News & World Report. </p>
<p>In US-News undergraduate ranking, Yale is #3 and Stanford is #4. But according to peer assessment, Stanford is #1 (scored 4.9), tied with Harvard, Princeton, and MIT. Yale is #5 (scored 4.8). </p>
<p>US-News has never been my gold-standard ranking, not even close to that. But I do think it is a ranking with clearly established criteria and clear ways of data collection. When I compare the universities. I also look at the faculty distinctions collected from other resource, such as membership in national academies, NRC rankings, faculty awards, and etc.</p>
<h1>To svalbardlutefisk,</h1>
<p>I agree with you that US-NEWS is not perfect. And NRC ranking is better. But US-NEWS individual program ranking is based on academic peer survey. The people who have participated these surveys are heads of the departments, the directors of graduate programs. They are more knowledgeable in their areas than any random person surfing on this thread. Their opions should not be far away from the reality. </p>
<p>Yale is great in biology. But I still think Stanford is better in biology. According to US-News, academic peers gave Stanford a 4.9 score in biological science and #1 ranking for a decade, while Yale has been around #7 for years, with a score of around 4.5. </p>
<p>Even if you use 1993 NRC ranking to compare Stanford and Yale in biological science, Stanford still had a slite edge over Yale. See below:</p>
<p>biochemistry/molecular biology: stanford (#2, scored 4.83), Yale (#6, scored 4.59)
cell biology: Stanford (#6, 4.55), Yale (#10, 4.37)
ecology: Stanford (#1, 4.51), Yale (#17, 3.83)
genetics: Stanford (#5, 4.48), Yale (#8, 4.32)
Neurol sciences: Stanford (#5, 4.64), Yale (#2, 4.76)
pharmocology: Stanford (#16, 3.81), Yale (#1, 4.45)
physiology: Stanford (#8, 4.20), Yale (#1, 4.48).</p>
<p>link: [NRC</a> Rankings in Each of 41 Areas](<a href=“http://www.stat.tamu.edu/~jnewton/nrc_rankings/nrc41indiv.html]NRC”>NRC Rankings in Each of 41 Areas)</p>
<p>I would agree that Yale looked much stronger than in US-News rankings of recent years. Does that mean Yale has been getting weaker in biological science in recent years? I don’t know. Let’s wait for the new NRC ranking coming out next year.</p>
<p>Lemme settle this (ahem):</p>
<p>They’re both just swell.</p>