Quote:
We hold all schools with respect to their respective mission standards and what they wish to do. We don't hold Christian universities to the same admission standards as Ivy League universities - because we know that Christian universities have a particular goal - and that goal is different from that of the Ivy League universities. We don't hold Caltech to the same admission standards as Ivy League universities - because we know that Caltech's educational goals are different from those of the Ivy League universities.
What has changed, though, are MIT's educational goals in particular. MIT's educational goals have changed from what they were in the past. And some people don't like it.
|
Now we're getting somewhere. I agree that MIT is probaly changing its goals. And what's necessarily wrong with that? MIT has changed goals in the past. Again, MIT used to be little more than just a trade school, and didn't become a fully-fledged research dynamo until the 1940's. I would argue that that's a quite strong reorientation of goals, and I suspect there were some people back then who disliked that reorientation.
Or, like I said in my previous post, MIT has made a strong push into less technical subjects such as philosophy, linguistics, poli-sci, urban planning, and so forth. The Sloan School has become a far more holistic business school as opposed to just an industrial management boutique. Again, that's a rather strong reorientation of goals.
Look, we live in a competitive world and schools have to evolve with the times if they want to maintain relevance.
So I agree that MIT is probably evolving in response to the competition 'up the river'. And it should. You can't ignore customer demand. You can't be like BMW and refuse to provide cupholders even when your customers consistently demand them.
Hence, if MIT is changing goals, I think it's fair that it should be judged according to its new goals. Nobody now seriously attempts to judge MIT on the goals of its old trade-school past. Similarly, nobody nowadays seems to judge Harvard based on its past as a religious school - but that's precisely what it was in the old days.
Hence, it seems to me that the
real problem is not really about MIT's admissions policies, because like I said, MIT is still more meritocratic than the Ivies or Stanford, but just that some people just don't like that MIT is changing its goals. Well, if that's the case, then why not just come out and say that's the real reason?
Quote:
|
One such educational goal is the "training of the future scientists and engineers of the 20th century". MIT's goal captures this sentiment, but has broadened it out. Caltech has retained it. How many more universities retain such a goal? Pure engineering universities do exist, but where then is the student who desires a mix of science and engineering at the top level?
|
Well, I'm not quite so deterministic as that. Look, you don't need to go to MIT to get a "top level" science/engineering education. The truth is, any of the top 50-100 schools probably has the tools to provide you with an elite-level science/engineering education. Nothing is stopping you from taking a slew of graduate courses and piecing together an education that is just as rigorous as anything you might find at MIT or Caltech.