Students review of Stanford has got me worried

<p>Im going to be applying to colleges this year, and for a long time now, Stanford has been one of my top 3 choices. I'm currently planning on applying SCEA, and will major in science or engineering, prbly engineering. However, I just read a review from that has really shocked me.</p>

<p>"I went to Stanford as an Undergraduate in the late 1990's, majoring in one of the engineering departments... </p>

<p>And it wasn't worth it. I view my diploma as a receipt, but nothing more. It's not as marketable as some propagandists would like you to believe. In fact, during this past summer's graduation ceremony, a number of students actually spelled out the word "Unemployed!" with pillows laid down on the football field, visible for all to see. </p>

<p>Let me give you another example. For those of you who don't know, Donald Knuth is known in the academic community as the "Father of Computer Science," and has been at Stanford since the late 1960's. He's well known for writing the "Bible" of computer science, "The Art of Computer Programming". </p>

<p>Yet even though I took over half-a-dozen core courses in Computer Science at Stanford, I never ONCE heard the name Donald Knuth, I never SAW the guy in person (or even in a photograph until I looked on his website many years after I graduated), and I have never read his books. "The Art of Computer Programming" books were never part of the curriculum. </p>

<p>But that's typical of Stanford: Pay a bunch of professors a lot of money to do very little teaching. In fact, professors generally have to teach only one-quarter (10 weeks total) of classes a year, and that's not even a full ten week period, because the lectures last all of 3 hours TOTAL in the week, and usually a couple of office hours placed at the most inconvenient times. This means that students are paying professors to devote 20% of a typical 40-hour work week to undergraduate matters, with the remaining 80% left to their own discretion. And for many professors, this schedule is in effect for only about 20% of the year (10 weeks out of 52 weeks in a year); the remaining 80% of the year is left to their discretion, such as doing research, consulting to other companies, doing lectures at other campuses, or running their own companies. (A rare handful of professors do teach for two quarters.) To add insult to injury, I had professors who skipped out on their office hours. </p>

<p>A Stanford professor named Tom Campbell (Bachelors, Masters, and PhD degrees from the University of Chicago, PhD Harvard) actually served for five full terms in the House of Representatives of the United States Congress while simultaneously receiving his salary from Stanford. He spent so little time on the Stanford campus that some people started to get seriously upset. Critics charged that he was exploiting Stanford's flexibility, while advocates argued that he was increasing the visibility of Stanford and thus enhancing its reputation. After twenty years at Stanford, Campbell recently became the Dean of the Haas School of Business at UC Berkeley! Thanks Tom! </p>

<p>Most professors don't grade papers, and leave it to the Teaching Assistants. This is like writing code without a computer in front of you, and never bothering to run the program on ANY computer. How do you know if your program works? How do the professors know if their teaching is any good? How many of Stanford's Nobel Prize winning faculty attended Stanford as an undergraduate? I don't think a single one. </p>

<p>Most of the techie-Teaching Assistants didn't go to Stanford either. I had guys from Purdue, UCLA, Dartmouth, Amherst, U. of Maryland, U. of Texas, and of course, the ubiquitous University of California at Berkeley (UC Berkeley). Several profs got their undergrad degrees from Berkeley. </p>

<p>The professors always view themselves as RESEARCHERS first, and teachers a distant third or fourth -- if at all. If you look at the Stanford's "Courses and Degrees", which is a catalog that lists the courses being offered for a particular school year, you will see that many classes are taught by "Staff". No, "Staff" is not the name of a professor, but a euphemism for "somebody who might be associated somehow to our department, such as a graduate student, and who may or may not have ever taught a class before, and who may or may not have any training in how to teach." Many of my classes were taught by Staff. I recently found out that the Staff instructor for an important core class, spanning two-quarters (20 weeks), had not even earned a Master's degree at the time he was teaching! He was a graduate student who only had a Bachelor's degree. He had practically zero teaching experience, and it showed. The poor quality of that class wasn't just my imagination, as that class has since been discontinued and is no longer offered, and that guy doesn't teach anymore anywhere in the world. But such vindication is small consolation. It was a waste of money and time that can never be recovered. Other core classes have even been taught by currently-matriculated UNDER-graduates. It amazes me that Stanford gets away with it, especially when most HIGH SCHOOLS require that their teachers have a master's degree and have passed state licensing exams. </p>

<p>In fact, some classes are so bad that Stanford undergraduates actually take courses at the nearby De Anza Community College and Foothill Community College. That's right: Community Colleges. Don't laugh -- if you read the book on the history of the Apple Macintosh, "Insanely Great", you'll find that the hardware engineer attended one of those community colleges (I don't remember which). And in my Freshman year, I knew a political science major who transferred from a California junior college into Stanford. As an out-of-stater, I was shocked, although I have learned that California's junior colleges have a higher standard than the rest of the nation. Nevertheless, it makes you wonder: Why am I paying so much money? </p>

<p>"Sophomore Slump" occurs after the euphoria of Frosh year. You enter as a sophomore and realize "the honeymoon is over", i.e. that your professors aren't necessarily gifted in communicating their knowledge (one time literally a guy "taught" numerical analysis on computers by reading from a textbook!), and that the classes are bloated with too many students (I never had less than 50 in a class, so forget the 7:1 student teacher ratio published in US News and World Report's annual college survey). </p>

<p>Years after I graduated, ex-president Gerhard Casper -- being a great guy who experienced similar problems during his undergraduate years in Germany -- tried to rectify the problem by creating Freshmen and Sophomore Seminars, to encourage faculty-student interaction and small class sizes. But the number of open slots for students is extremely limited, and most professors don't participate. Thus the vast majority of undergraduates miss out with one-on-one faculty contact, even though 100% of the student body pays the full $30,000/year tuition. And some of the seminars are of questionable quality. Nobel Prize winning physicist, Doug Osheroff (BS Caltech, PhD Cornell) taught a freshman seminar in...amateur photography. What a joke! Talk about taking advantage of the system. </p>

<p>And don't get me started on the undergraduate "advising system", which is also a joke! Currently 78% of the faculty do NOT participate in advising undergrads. Many of the remaining advisers are upperclassmen trying to pad their resumes, or graduate students who are alumni of other universities and who are also trying to pad their resumes . You will not get good advice from these people, because they do not really have a track record to demonstrate the validity of their advice. It is the "blind leading the blind." My own experience was a nightmare. Once I had declared my major, I chose a particular faculty member to be my adviser; he was the only guy in my field of interest. When I went to get my study list signed by him, he flatly refused, saying "I don't advise undergraduates." I was furious, but what could I do? I ended up signing the remainder of my study lists on my own. </p>

<p>How do Stanford's engineering students fare when pitted against other students in competition? Not well. "NATCAR" is a contest for California electrical engineering students, in which radio controlled cars race around a track. Look at the results and search for the Stanford name: <a href=""&gt;;/a>.
As you can see, Stanford placed 10th in 2001, but is otherwise a no-show. In at least one of the years, the Stanford team tried-- but failed -- to get a car running. It looks like they have now simply abandoned the idea of entering. </p>

<p>Stanford's marketing department has used deceptive tactics to imply that Stanford has produced successful people. Look beneath the superficialities, and you'll find that the overwhelming majority did not attend Stanford as an undergraduate, and sometimes, not even as a graduate student. All of the following people have been used in Stanford marketing literature and press releases:</p>

<p>-Donald Knuth did not attend Stanford for his undergraduate degree; he went to Case Institute of Technology (Case Western Reserve). His PhD is from the California Institute of Technology (Caltech). </p>

<p>-The founder of MIPS, John Hennessey, did not attend Stanford for his undergraduate degree. His alma mater is Villanova University. He got his graduate degrees at State University of New York, Stonybrook. Take a look at the Senior Management and the Board of Directors at MIPS (<a href=""&gt;;/a>. Not a single one received a degree from the undergraduate school of engineering at Stanford, even though MIPS is only 15 minutes away from the Stanford campus! Yet Hennessey was a provost for the school of engineering and is currently the president of Stanford! Does he know something you don't? </p>

<p>-The inventor of the mouse, Doug Engelbart, did not attend Stanford for his undergraduate degree. Engelbart picked up a degree in electrical engineering from Oregon State, and a Bachelor of Engineering and PhD from UC Berkeley. </p>

<p>-The founders of Sun Microsystems did not attend Stanford for their undergraduate degrees. Vinod Khosla went to the Indian Institute of Technology and picked up his masters at Carnegie Mellon, Bill Joy went to U. of Michigan and picked up a Master's at UC Berkeley (in addition to inventing the sockets protocol for the Berkeley System Distribution of UNIX), Andy Bechtolsheim got his undergraduate training in Germany and got an MS from Carnegie-Mellon, and Scott McNealy went to Harvard. </p>

<p>-The founders of Silicon Graphics did not attend Stanford for their undergraduate degree. Jim Clark attended a college in New Orleans, Louisiana, and picked up his PhD from the University of Utah. Marc Hannah went to U. of Illinois at Urbana Champaign. Charles Rhodes picked up his BS, MS, and PhD's from Purdue University. Kurt Akeley got his undergraduate degree from U. of Delaware. </p>

<p>-The founders of Cisco System did not attend Stanford for their undergraduate degree. Len Bosack got his BSEE from U. of Pennsylvania. Sandra Lerner got her BA in Political Science from California State in Chico. </p>

<p>-The founders of Google did not attend Stanford for their undergraduate degrees. Larry Page went to U. of Michigan. Sergey Brin's alma mater is U. of Maryland. </p>

<p>-The founder of defunct VA-Linux and the fully functional Sourceforge did not attend Stanford for his undergraduate degree. Larry Augustin went to U. of Notre Dame. </p>

<p>-The founders of Apple Computer did not attend Stanford for their undergraduate degrees. Steve Jobs attended (and dropped out of) Reed College. Steve Wozniak received his BSEE from UC Berkeley. </p>

<p>-The co-inventor of the transistor, William Shockley, did not attend Stanford for his undergraduate degree. His alma mater is Caltech, and he got his PhD from MIT. But he grew up in Palo Alto, California (the town that surrounds Stanford University), and moved back to found one of the first transistor companies that would spawn off into the half-a-dozen companies that put the "silicon" in "Silicon Valley". (The founders of Intel didn't attend Stanford either.) </p>

<p>-The founders of EBay did not attend Stanford for their undergraduate degrees. Pierre Omidyar went to Tufts and transferred to UC Berkeley. After founding EBay, he gave $10 million to Tufts. Jeff Skoll attended the University of Toronto. </p>

<p>-The founders of Microsoft did not attend Stanford for their undergraduate degrees. Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard. Paul Allen graduated from the University of Washington in Seattle. The reason I bring this up is that the two nevertheless have their names on two buildings on the Stanford campus. The Gates Building houses the entire Computer Science Department. I wonder why Stanford needed to solicit their funds? Don't they have scores of successful alumni who could have donated the money? It's a rhetorical question, of course. Many of the buildings on campus were funded by non-alumni, including the massive Green Library and Green Earth Sciences building, Stern Hall, the Iris & B. Gerald Cantor Center for the Visual Arts (which was renamed from the Leland Stanford Jr. Memorial Art Museum), and others. Non alumnus and Silicon Graphics/Netscape founder Jim Clark recently caused a furor when he decided to stop funding the building of the Clark Biological Sciences building for Stanford's new department fusing biology and engineering. Explaining his decision in a published letter to the New York Times, Clark made it unequivocally clear that he gave the money for the building because he expected a return on his investment, and not out of love or loyalty to Stanford. </p>

<p>-Finally, you've no doubt read in "Burn Rate" that Yahoo! was started by a couple of undergrads in their dorm room. Unfortunately, that's not true. The majority shareholder, David Filo, attended Tulane University as an undergraduate. He met up with another GRADUATE student Jerry Yang (who DID attend Stanford as an undergrad) at Stanford in Kyoto, Japan -- surprising to me, because I always thought the world wide Stanford centers were reserved for undergraduates.( But with over 900 electrical engineering GRADUATE students enrolled, versus maybe about 80 electrical engineering undergrads, it's clear that that the graduate students have the upper hand.) </p>

<p>I could go on and on. Intel. National Semiconductor. Texas Instruments (which manufactures the chips for Sun.) None of these were founded by undergraduate alumni, and Stanford should not try to take credit and inflate its own resume based on the successes of non-alumni. How would you feel if (hypothetically speaking) an investigation revealed that your beloved local Krispy Kreme Doughnuts store was actually stealing the doughnuts from an obscure little local no-name bakery down the street, and repackaging and selling them to you at inflated prices? Wouldn't you want to switch to the bakery and save your money? </p>

<p>Anybody who tells you otherwise is full of it. Especially US News and World Report. I realize that nobody can influence US News and World Report, so it's best to educate prospective college students with the facts. I've been there, and done that. Don't go to Stanford for your undergraduate degree, but DO go there for your graduate degree (although I think that Stanford now will take between 30% to 60% of the income of any invention or other intellectual property you create while working at their labs). And based on the biographies above, it's definitely OK to go to a state university. Some people feel a stigma otherwise. </p>

<p>If you don't believe any of this could happen, read the Boyer Commission's report at </p>

<p><a href=""&gt;;/a> </p>

<p>and "Profscam" by Charles Sykes, who ironically has a fellowship at the Hoover Institution, an independent think-tank nestled in the Hoover Tower on the Stanford campus. </p>

<p>Also, go to websites of various high tech companies, and look at the biographies of the executives. Find out the names of each executive's undergraduate alma mater. The results are often surprising, and will give you a clue about where you can get the best value for your money. In addition, take note of people who attended Stanford, and wisely figured out that they didn't need to continue paying Stanford for a lousy education: </p>

<li>Nobel prize winning author John Steinbeck. </li>
<li>Ted Danson, the actor who portrayed the bartender Sam Malone on the syndicated television series "Cheers". Danson transferred from Stanford to Carnegie-Mellon. </li>
<li>John McEnroe, Wimbledon tennis champion. </li>
<li>Reese Witherspoon, actress. </li>
<li>Tiger Woods, golfing prodigy and multi-gazillionaire. </li>

<p>Remember, these folks DROPPED OUT of Stanford. </p>

<p>You may notice some reviews on this topic that claim that Stanford students are getting six figure salaries upon graduating. Caveat emptor -- that is all in the past, due to the hype of the Internet bubble, which has collapsed. As I pointed out, this year, graduating Stanford students had a tough time finding (and not finding) jobs. In these days of economic recession, incessant job layoffs, and uncertain times, you -- the potential college consumer -- owe it to yourself and your parents (or guardians) to get the best value for your money. </p>

<p>Finally, let me say that writing this review is somewhat painful, because when I graduated from high school, ready to go to Stanford, my parents were proud, I felt like I had accomplished something, and the future looked great and rosy. When I got to Stanford and experienced it, it was not great, did not provide me with the fundamental and necessary training, and left me cynical and pessimistic about the underlying motivations of the faculty. </p>

<p>Don't make the same mistake I did. </p>

<p>Good luck in the future! </p>

<p>(Feel free to send this info to any parent, high school counselor, or wide-eyed innocent high school student. When I was in high school, I didn't have the advantage of the Internet to research schools thoroughly. I wish I had had this information. )"</p>

<p>Ouch....So.....does anyone have anything to say in defense of Stanford undergrad, particularly its engineering?</p>

<p>well, don't expect all the large colleges to have professors teach each class..
TA system.. that's very typical of them.</p>

<p>but it is true.. that oftentimes, graduated UC berkeley students get employed better than Stanford students..</p>

<p>i'm not sure if engineering falls under that statement.</p>

<p>o0CrazyGlue0o don't put too much emphasis on that website. When I read it I too flipped out but you have to remember this is one guys opinion. The truth is Stanford is a great place for engineers. Is some of what he's saying true? Probably but he probably exaggerates them. Don't get too hung up on these reviews ask current students themselves. This site is known for its bad reviews
ohh and btw EE is great at Stanford just check out who one the DARPA challenge this year...</p>

<p>for every person who hates a college, there is at least one other person who adores the place. remember, one personal story isn't everything. i personally couldn't care less about big-name professors. if they're not on campus, i don't care. i'm still going to be taught by stanford professors.</p>

<p>The vast majority of Stanford students (according to College ******* and pretty much everyone I've spoken to) are satisfied with their experience. The school has a stellar reputation and a high rank in pretty much any college ranking system. The campus is beautiful and I loved my 3 week summer program there.</p>

<p>That's enough to satisfy me.</p>

<p>P.S. Also remember that Stanford won the very difficult and prestigious DARPA Grand Challenge.</p>

<p>Is it true though that some Stanford students take community college courses, that undergraduates teach some classes, that they had a nobel laureate teaching amateur photography? I dont care how many people are satisfied with their experience, I want to know what the quality of undergraduate engineering education is compared to other selective schools such as Caltech and MIT. As for asking current students, Id take the opinion of an adult whos already graduated more seriously since they can see what theyve gained from stanford undergrad as a whole. Btw, I believe that DARPA challenge was won by GRADUATE students.</p>

<p>Have you seen some of the reviews for comparable schools. The scathing reviews of Harvard or Yale. Or Cal....</p>

<p>I mean this site is a complete joke. I am not saying that Stanford doesn't have it's flaws. I am just saying that you should probably consider your source. Almost all of the reviews of the "elites" that I have read on are scathing and they are of similar complaints. I wouldn't put much stock into it. </p>

<p>Granted I haven't actually attended Stanford yet, but I have met several alum and students who are extremely satisfied with their experience. All of the alum I have ever met are very successful. And the students I have talked (in engineering) are quite happy.</p>

<p>If you are going to base your decision on this site, and consider it a credible opinion then you will not end up applying to any of the "top" schools. Look at Harvard's reviews, they are no different from Stanford's. I imagine that MIT and the like aren't any different either. And I know Cal's are just as bad.</p>

<p>All places have negative aspects and students who were not satisfied. It was important to me to find out negatives as well as positives in my college search, and you just have to ask yourself how much you believe that stuff and how much it will affect you if you go there IF you get in. (I often wonder if some people are just never satisfied with anything.) If you want to find a school with which you'll be 100% satisified, good luck... :)</p>

<p>I checked out MITs and Caltechs reviews. There were some bad ones, but nothing as bad as this Stanford guy wrote. Im not going to completely base my college decision on the reviews at this site, but this review has just put everything in a new perspective for me. I had always been under the impression that stanfords undergrad and grad departments were of roughly equal quality, but Im not so sure of that anymore. I know college experiences vary from person to person. One guy who wrote a positive review was taught by Donald Knuth. But dont tell me this review is a joke unless you can prove it wrong first.</p>

<p>I didn't say the review was a joke... this guy felt like this was his reality. And that is fine. I said the site was a joke. 60 voluntary reviews of one school that does not include background checks of it's reviewer (and therefore there is no proof that this guy even went to stanford) that has about fourteen thousand students at is not a great sample. </p>

<p>I wouldn't take the opinion of some anoymous person on the internet over other statistical and empirical information I have received. Obvisously this guy had a horrible experience, and I am sure many other students also have bad experiences. But my point was that other students at other universities have the same bad experiences.. that Stanford is not the only school with these issues. ANd that no matter where you go you will find people who had bad experiences. </p>

<p>It is true that some of the classes are taught by T.A.'s as they are at every major research university in the world.</p>

<p>As you said, this guy did not have a class with David Knuth but many other students did. Just as many other students have had classes with Tobias Wolff.</p>

<p>Every professor I met was completely accessible, and every student I have met has had good relationships with their professor. Almost everyone I talked to had access to research. </p>

<p>I met students who were offered jobs after one semester of study abroad in the Wash D.C. program. </p>

<p>My information isn't statistical, and frankly I not going to do the research to make it so. This empirical information, OPINIONS from students who were actually at the school, and who I saw in person. </p>

<p>I can't defend the comments about Stanford v.s Caltech v.s. MIT because I never researched the other schools. I am fuzzy, so I didn't apply to any tech oriented schools. I suppose that my suggestion would be to visit all three and determine for yourself whether or not they have better programs. I didn't use the internet in my decision process... because it is a fickle sample and information isn't reliable.</p>

<p>Wow... I honestly don't know what's up with this guy. I suspect it is one of two things. The most probable seems to be that he never went to Stanford. If he did go to Stanford, it sounds like he's just really bitter about not having the job he wants. Perhaps he thought that if he went to Stanford and slacked off he'd still end up with the job of his dreams? </p>

<p>It is possible that some students take community college classes. If they do, I suspect that it is because they are easier than Stanford classes. Students might decide to take chemistry or physics over the summer. I have NEVER heard of students taking classes at a community college otherwise. Undergraduates do serve as teaching assistants in at least intro level computer science classes. These students are more than qualified to do the job though. These tend to be kids who were programming since they were 8 so that's really nothing to worry about. There are also a few classes that are taught by students that are student initiated courses. They are worth 1-2 units (very little) and often pass/fail. These are not core classes and I'm pretty sure they never get you out of GERs, they are just for fun. This is equivalent to the student led classes on, say, the simpsons at other schools, only these classes tend to be more serious. And yes, Osheroff did teach a class called "The Technical Aspects of Photography." From what I understand he got to know the students in the class very well and is now going to be the advisor for several of them who are physics majors. The purpose of the seminars is to allow for student/faculty interaction, so I really don't see how that is "a waste." </p>

<p>I really wouldn't take that review too seriously. At all. Most students really love their experience and are able to find good jobs when they graduate. Maybe things really were different in the 1990s. Who knows.</p>

<p>"You may notice some reviews on this topic that claim that Stanford students are getting six figure salaries upon graduating. Caveat emptor -- that is all in the past, due to the hype of the Internet bubble, which has collapsed. As I pointed out, this year, graduating Stanford students had a tough time finding (and not finding) jobs. In these days of economic recession, incessant job layoffs, and uncertain times, you -- the potential college consumer -- owe it to yourself and your parents (or guardians) to get the best value for your money." </p>

<p>I don't see how an economic recession is the university's fault. </p>

<p>Excellent post Marlgirl!. Much more elequent than mine.</p>

<p>If you check the lists of undergraduate institutions of PhD recipients, Stanford is in the top ten (by percentage) for one field: medical sciences.</p>

<p>For comparison, these research universities are also in the top ten (a sample, not exhaustive):</p>

<p>U Chicago, 11 fields
CalTech, 7 fields
MIT, 6 fields
Yale, 6 fields
Princeton, 5 fields
Rice, 4 fields</p>

<p>Source: Weighted Baccalaureate Origins Study, Higher Education Data Sharing Consortium.</p>

<p>Also I would like to point out that Stanford hasn't really participated much in NATCAR. Does that mean its too tough for them? No but they probably decided they want to do other things.
o0CrazyGlue0o I would suggest that before you decide you have to take into consideration more that a bunch of sore people's opinions. If you can go to Stanford and ask the students there, read opinions on this forum, read the rankings given by the Princeton Review. It would be a shame if you decide against a university based on a few disgruntled people.
Also if Stanford itself is to be believed (which it should) then a whopping 75% of classes have 15 people or less in it! (I'm talking about undergraduates btw). Before you dismiss Stanford take a look at what its undergraduates are doing:<a href=""&gt;;/a> and read about the winners of the Firestone and Golden medals (some of the winners are engineers):<a href=""&gt;;/a>
So don't judge Stanford on the opinion on a person who MIGHT have gone there a decade ago.</p>

<p>I see a lot of winners in biology, computer science, etc., but Andrew Sung is the only guy I see in engineering. And exactly how prestigious is this Firestone award anyway? At the undergrad research page, it only shows three awards; the firestone, golden, and deans' award. I searched MIT but couldnt find anything on these awards, so correct me if im wrong, but im guessing they are only school awards. Also, I notice that Stanford doesnt list aero/astro engineering or chemical engineering, two of my most likely choices for an engineering major, as one of its programs that sponsors undergrad research. Ive heard that when applying for grad school, research experience is the most important thing, so that could be a problem, no?</p>

<p>You can research if you're going into ChemE. Andrew Sung studied chemE and you can graduate with honors from that program only if you do research so you can get plentyof research if you go into ChemE.

Chemical Engineering
The Department of Chemical Engineering offers a program leading to a Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering with honors. Qualified undergraduate majors conduct independent study and research at an advanced level with a faculty mentor, graduate students, and fellow undergraduates. This three quarter sequential program involves research study in an area proposed to and agreed to by a Department of Chemical Engineering faculty adviser, completion of a faculty-approved thesis, and participation in the Chemical Engineering Honors Symposium held annually during Spring Quarter. The last requirement may also be fulfilled through an alternative, public, oral presentation with the approval of the department chair.</p>

<p>Admission to the honors program is by application. Declared Chemical Engineering students with a grade point average (GPA) of 3.5 or higher in Chemical Engineering courses are eligible to submit an application. Applications must be submitted no later than the second week of Autumn Quarter of the senior year, include an honors proposal, and be sponsored by both a thesis adviser and a second reader. The adviser, or alternatively the sponsor, must be a member of the Chemical Engineering faculty. Students should take advantage of university programs that support undergraduate research such as those sponsored by Undergraduate Research Programs; see <a href=""&gt;;/a>. Students should start their honors research in their junior year and incorporate Summer Quarter research opportunities into their three quarter honors research proposal. Subject to faculty approval, it is recommended that students include a writing course in the second quarter of their honors project.


Yes the firestone medal is a university prize given to the top undergraduate researches. I'm not too sure how they're decided but the point I was trying to make is that there is plenty of research opportunities at Stanford. Apparently last year those doing biology got lots of medals but it changes every year. Also remember that unlike other univesities all majors participate in research not just the sciences. You can easily do undergrad research at stanford if you want to, ask current students if you want to they'll agree with me. Also if you want other awards check out this page:<a href=""&gt;;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>From the aeronautics department</p>

<p><a href=""&gt;;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>From Undergraduate Research</p>

<p><a href=""&gt;;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>As the undergraduate research department suggests, I think you should call the individual departments and ask them these questions. Or talk to current students, live current students. Visit the campus. If you are not satisfied then don't come to Stanford.</p>

<p>From the college of Humanities and Sciences
<a href=""&gt;;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>From the school of engineering
<a href=""&gt;;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Stanford is ranked very high on National Research Council's Rankings
<a href=""&gt;;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Again, those research opportunities for aero/astro engineering and the rankings you posted are for Stanford's graduate school. Please try to stay focused on undergrad stuff. I will check with Stanford students and faculty later. Im just trying to decide whether im going to apply to Caltech EA or Stanford SCEA.</p>