<p>^LOL unsubstantiated comments much? I’m not trying to argue Penn is better than Stanford, or even at the same level, because I don’t believe it is (and I’m a Penn student), but I just want to clarify some things:
- The area around Penn is not that terrible. If you haven’t spent time as an undergrad, I don’t think it’s fair to assess it. People don’t even bother stepping foot more than 2 blocks off campus, and it’s really not that bad–some parts are even charming. Just because it isn’t a suburban heaven does not mean it’s the pit of the Earth. And who knows, maybe living there might actually be a good experience than being isolated in wealth for 4 years. So many students work in West Philly in a bunch of different tutoring programs, and while I don’t, I expect it’s a very rewarding, enlightening experience.
- Stanford is a research powerhouse and it’s grad programs are nearly universally at the top–but I just don’t see how people can make a comment like “research done at Stanford is a little more than Penn” (does that statement even make sense?). I wouldn’t doubt that Stanford has higher output, but people just make these blanket statements based on I don’t know what…their own unmerited perceptions…without support. It’s a bad, annoying habit.
- Acceptance rate can’t be used to define selectivity. Roughly the same number of people are accepted every year, it’s just that more people apply every year. Acceptance rates reflect class size and popularity (popularity deriving from number of applicants and yield). But a school can’t “choose” to have a lower acceptance rate unless it cuts its class size.</p>