Mediterranean

bowtoserenity: Presenting UChicago as a counterexample to the low admissions statistic isn't valid. I don't understand how you can even say that a low admissions rate isn't a good indicator of how good the accepted students are. UChicago has a high acceptance rate and the type of student there is different than IIT or MIT - it's not possibe to compare IIT to Chicago and/or Chicago to MIT.

Of course, I'm not saying that IIT students are better than MIT students in being well-rounded students, but academically, IIT students rank in the top percent 0.00005% of India's population.

nomad: A close friend of mine has had relatives and both of his parents attend IIT. They knew the directors of IIT on a personal level, and in private, admitted that IIT needs more funding when compared to MIT. When it comes from the actual directors of the institution, I don't think that either of us can dispute that as a fact and not as an "opinion."

cannednish

Like I said before, it is difficult to compare the two Universities due to the different standards for admission.

screw

Well friends i think that looking at the opportunities available to graduates of both the universities will give a better picture. Like are there more opportunities for IIT graduates or MIT graduates? And who are more in demand?

the_prestige

The one downside to IIT is that people will likely confuse it with the local technical institute featured in 3am TV ad spots preceding a 1 hour infomercial on Suzanne Summer's thighmaster.

hampster

example. Bowtoserenity, was saying that a low admissions rate doesn't necessarily tell us anything about the quality of the accepted students.

Example: You can have a school for mentally retarded children or for juvenile delinquents that has a lower acceptance rate than Harvard. Does this mean that the students at these schools have better students than Harvard?

The fact is, MIT attracts the best applicants in the world (not just Americans) whereas IIT attracts the best students from one country. The arguments that have been voiced here (by mostly Indian students I presume), work if Indian students are the best in the world, which I don't think is true. In fact, even if it were true that Indian students are the best in the world, it might be that the very best Indian students apply to schools in the U.S.

Hlover

hampster, if we shouldnt count selectivity in our comparison, why should we compare attraction? the fact that MIT attracts students around from around the world does not make it better than IIT. the IIT lifestyle and prereqs may hamper the global appeal, but in India, the attraction to the IIT school system is palpable.

i'm not saying one is better thaN the other, but i dont think MIT's global applicant pool shows its superiority.

fyi: i am not an indian student, nor am i considering either of these schools.

hampster

but I'm only allowed to recruit players within 100 miles of my hometown, and you're also a recruiter, but you can recruit anyone from anywhere in the world. Who do you think is more likely to have a stronger team?

That's the reason why MIT probably has a stronger student body. The very best in the world, including some from India I imagine, flock to MIT whereas only the very best from India, in general, flock to IIT.

I'm not saying it's not a top notch school. I just don't think it's on par with MIT. Of course, you can say that IIT doesn't focus on research and it's actually quite very different from MIT or provide some other reason, but can't we say this about pretty much any school? If so, then we can't really say that MIT is better than Tokyo University or the National University of Singapore, or the University of the Philippines, or Technion in Israel, or Imperial College in London, or any other topnotch school from its respective country. Because you can always say that it's different or it's comparing apples and oranges.

the_prestige

Hlover,

The difference is quite simple.

One school resides in a country that is THE unarguable global leader in higher education (not to mention the only global superpower) with arguably the top 5 schools in the world (including MIT) -- schools which attract the best and brightest students from around the globe. The other school has very limited global name value and resides in an emerging market with marginal global power and extremely limited global appeal.

There is no comparison really.

Hlover

oh ok - i think i was misunderstood. what i meant to say, was: just as the selectivity should not be the sole derterminant of quality when comparing two schools, APPLICANT (note: not admitted) pool should not be the sole criteria either.

obviously, MIT has much greater name recognition, as it is situated in "THE inarguable global leader in higher education (not to mention the only superpower." (the_prestige) i totally agree - having a degree from MIT would seem more valuable than one from IIT - "no comparison really." but the actual school and students is not the same as "global name value"

and, the soccer example still doesnt click with me. is UMichigan better than UC Berkeley because UMichigan has a much higher OOS percentage? not really. both schools are quite similar in most areas, but UCB is like the soccer team with the 100 mile limit, and UMich is the one with free range. are the schools themselves so vastly different due to their admitted students' states?

once again, i am not saying IIT is better, not even equal to MIT. i'm just gathering info/questioning how these judgements can be made.

getsome23

Hlover, your UC Berkeley reference is... odd. I live right near Michigan and I would say that Berkeley's reputation is just as good if not better than U of M (in terms of the average person's view of both colleges. i am in no way saying UC Berkeley is better than U of M) Maybe the example was completely hypothetical but why make a comparison that doesn't work? It just makes the issue more confusing.

Hlover

every school has a slightly different reputation in different part of the US and in different parts of the world. i live near michigan as well, and in my town and high school, UMich is looked upon as equal to UCB in terms of prestige - however that was not the point i was discussing.
my example with these two schools was my attempt to illustrate how both schools are academically on par - yet one (UCB) has a much higher in state percentage, thus limiting its applicant pool and admitted students to california. whereas, at UMich, in state accounts for much less, as the state has a lower in state requirement. for this example, UMich is comparable to MIT, with the widespread applicant pool. UCB is comparable to IIT, with applicants all from one state (country) and further requirements (specific fine arts credit, for example).
in your (getsome23) post, you basically agreed with me that UCB's rep is "just as good, if not better than U of M." both schools have reasonably close USNews overall ranking and resource ranking.

is UMich better solely because of it's geographic diversity? is MIT better solely because of it's geographic diversity?

^that was my purpose of the comparison. only the above question. nothing else. sorry if that was confusing. i can drop that comparison, but i though i ought to explain it a little better, and see if it takes hold.

now, for my overall opinion:

there are many other factors that make MIT a better overall school for the international applicant: research, resources, money, being in a great United States city, name recognition etc.

my take on IIT:
the IIT school system is totally different (throw in apples to oranges phrase here). engineering in india is treated differently than in the united states. the IIT school system's hype and prestige is similar to the ivy league here in america. high school students at decent to good schools in india are obesessed with "tuitions" and IIT exam prep courses like we are with Kaplan and Princeton review for SATs and ACTs. Engineering is almost like a liberal arts study (from what i have gathered). if students are unsure of what they want to study, engineering is treated as the best place to start. and some of the best places to study engineering in india are at the IITs.

the_prestige

^^^ that's great "in India" but frankly, to put it bluntly, who cares what goes on "in India"? I mean, I'm not trying to be sarcastic -- I know that IIT is HYPSM all wrapped up into one "in India" (case and point: I knew a couple of IIT grads from b-school and they were probably two of the smartest -- text book smart -- math geniuses -- that I will ever likely meet). So I have a great deal of respect for how hard it is to matriculate into IIT where you've got literally millions of kids trying to get a spot. But, like I said before, let's not lose the forest for the trees. This is "in India".

Take a step back (i.e. "out of India") and its level of prestige (to the general population -- i.e. outside of the highly specialized world of engineering and computer science circles) drops like a stone. You can't say that about MIT. Perhaps Caltech is a better example since for those who know, Caltech is the business, but for your average schmoe you mention Caltech and he'd likely stare at you like a guy taking your order for a Big Mac.

Hlover

once again, i agree that MIT is a better school to hold a degree from in the real world. no questions asked.

but
a) i do care what goes on "in India," and the OP seems to as well. i assume this because a potential applicant to IIT must be either Indian, or able to handle themselves in India. correct me if i'm wrong.
b) i might have a personal reason to care, but since you brought some of your interaction with IIT grads - I'll share mine: my father graduated from IIT and applied to b-schools in the US. he was accepted to one the top programs (I can PM this to you if you want) and offered jobs as a prof at unis including UPenn and MIT. in my mind his educational/career path translates as pretty successful - and started at an IIT.

c) I UNDERSTAND MIT HAS BETTER NAME RECOGNITION AND PRESTIGE IN THE US.
how many times do I have to say this?!?! I AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT

d) i do however disagree that most people at MIT, IIT, caltech, Stanford, HYP or whatever top school do not worry about how the "general population" will respond to conversational chatter about their degree. Students care about future employers (ie companies, industries, govt agencies....not "your average joe schmoe") Yes, MIT has that national prestige and the obvious recognition in the job market. Yes, IIT is way more valued and recognized in India than anywhere else - BUT in the spheres where it matters, IIT does have a formidable rep.

the_prestige

^^^ i don't disagree with what you have written, on balance.

But as to your last point, if you could graduate with a degree from an institution that:

A) Is held in high esteem by those "that matter" (i.e. grad schools, professionals, your future mother-in-law, etc.)
B) Is held in high esteem by Joe the Barber, Billy Bob the Mechanic and the cute blond sitting at the bar

If you HAD to choose one, you'd obviously choose "A"... but if you COULD have BOTH, isn't that inherently better? I mean, why not?

lfecollegeguy

The average Indian is not as educated as the average American. This is a much a fact as the average American's yearly income being higher as well. Since much more Indians apply to ITT than Americans to MIT, this drives down the acceptance rate (along with India being much more populated than the United States).

Furthermore, MIT has selective applicants. The average blue-collar worker or 2.5 GPA student is not going to take the SATs and apply to MIT unlike for students in India and China who all take the tests and apply to the top schools (even if their chances are close to zilch).

Therefore, acceptance rates for ITT and say, Beijing University or Tsinghua University should not be compared to those of top U.S. universities who have relatively higher quality applicants and a much more selective applicant pool.