anotherNJmom

ETA: to previouse post.

Having been through economic finantial strugle when first came to this land, I had to changed my field of study/interest (but through years I learn to love what I'm doing) to make a living. ... Now when we have means to provide our kid high education, I don't want to put any restrain on my kid's select study field (though, we did try to influence kid to chose traditional money making career when he is very young and we felt not fianantially safe ourself.). Like sz's D, my kid's chosen field is not the high pay one. But the top ranked schools of the field are all among the high COA wise.

What about the knowlege? The analytical skills? The way of thinking? etc.

LauraN

Whether or not everything after your first sentence is true, this doesn't make any sense. You said that sakky's assertions are valid, and then described 3 groups of people. Sakky has repeatedly said that there is only one (those who are in it for the money). In fact, he also said that no one at MIT fell into your third category. If anyone on this board is trying to define MIT culture for everyone (despite the actual MIT students who are providing themselves and friends as counterexamples), it's sakky.

soozievt

Laura...bingo!

orbis_somnio

Laura, I think you've misunderstood. All I've said is that his assertions apply in the context of certain students at MIT. You don't think it's true? Then, I have nothing to say. The groups I've mentioned do exist. Just look at MIT Careers Office's graduating student survey, specifically the top ten employers and employers by department.

GleasSpty

Sakky-"Huh indeed? Again the answer is simple - because you will graduate. Let's face it. You don't just go to college just for the sake of going to college. You go to college because you want to graduate and get a degree. "

I don't want to go to college to get a degree. Screw that. If it were possible to get into grad school without a BS then I would probalby do just that, unless I got the BS by doing what I wanted anyways. Caltech and MIT (along with other rigorous schools) were both up high on my list in terms of choice because of their academic rigor, and let me tell you, I honeslty do not care if I live in a **** hole for the rest of my life as long as I can do what I want to do, learn what I want to learn, and research what I want to research.

Money means nohting to me, and never has. So there's at least one person in this world that does not fit your assumptions of why one goes to college: it is most certailny not to get a degree. I go because I want to learn.

RevDem

Ugh. I mean... the only (oh apologies... I meant MAIN) reason why I objected to the digression is because the arguments here are beating around the bush.

I mean... personally I do not like Sakky's views at all, but that's mainly because I object to realism. I do accept that his/her views are true to some extent.

What particularly ticks me off is that soozievt mentioned that the reason her kids go to school is to obtain an education and is in no way (oh apologies... I meant NOT PRIMARILY) affiliated with economic ends, but Sakky basically implies that soozievt is WRONG. Just watch:

See that accusatory "you" there? I mean... Sakky later summarizes a lot of his/her points with "Most..." and there still are arguments telling the other people that their personal viewpoints are specifically wrong. I notice most of soozievt start his/her sentences with "I believe..." and Sakky refutes with something along the lines with "majority/minority". There's NO argument there.

I mean... my parents (and if one wants to be safe "MOST PARENTS") want me to get into college in order to obtain a high end job, but I don't. So am I automatically wrong and the truth is that I want to go to college to get money. Uh, you don't determine my mind. Agree to disagree. I mean this seems like one of those stereotype debates: take for example "all Asians are good at math." That stirs controversy, but once you change the phrase to "a significant portion of Asians are good at math", then the controversy basically dissolves.

I'm glad that I read a lot interesting points, but the fact is that a lot of you are arguing just to argue, not to resolve the MAIN points of others.

soozievt

I just want to clarify that is not entirely accurate as to how I feel about this. I think I said somewhere along the line but don't wish to find the post now....but that I see several reasons why I send my kids to college and grad school. One is for the education itself. To learn and grow and to be an educated person. Another reason is for the total college experience that I think is very worthwhile for this time in their lives. Another reason is that by having a college degree, more opportunities become available compared to the more limited opportunities for those without a degree. So, college hopefully will afford opportunities in life, be it in their fields of study or in something else that may require a college degree.

But what I also said is that I value their college and the expense in sending them no matter what they major in and no matter what they may earn when they get out. I would pay the same no matter the prestige of the school. I would pay the same no matter what they chose to major in (even if they go into low paying or iffy fields....one of my kids is in a very iffy field). I don't feel that by going to certain colleges, they will earn more than if attending another. Sending them to college just was not related to how much they could earn if they attended X school or majored in Y field and they never thought about any of that either. They didn't pick their schools with potential earnings in mind, nor did they pick their career fields with potential earnings as a factor.

I do believe, however, that by attending college and becoming educated, that greater opportunities will be available. I don't see that as related as much to how much they earn but by the many options they may be afforded that will bring them satisfaction. I would pay for their schooling no matter how much money they earn someday or not.

Meanwhile, as an aside, my two kids love their colleges and nothing pleases me more and I consider that priceless. Their lives will be impacted in some fashion by the experiences they are having at college.

By the way, I am not trying to argue what is right or wrong or how others may feel. I am only representing how I feel about my kids' educations and how I think they feel. Others may feel differently and that's cool. I do object to statements that "most feel this way" because as you can see here, many of us don't fit into the description of how "most feel". And I started participating in this discussion because I read Ben's post that describes how he sees many of his fellow MIT students and I simply thought upon reading the post that hey, my kid is similar....she may fit into MIT very nicely. I do expect she'll meet all types. I hope she loves it as much as she has loved her undergrad school. She is quite psyched about the opportunity to go to MIT next year and chose it over several other really good options.

Olo

Saying you go to college to get a degree is kind of like saying you paint in order to get a painting. :/

RevDem

soozievt: I think I may have been unclear and I apologize. I disliked Sakky's attacks, not yours. In fact, I support everything you had said because that is precisely how I feel about education and you reiterated your points that I was trying to look for earlier, but couldn't find. So if someone opens up an argument, I know exactly what to look for now. Yay.

I agree with Sakky in that MANY people go to college, or even aim for brand-name colleges instead of lesser ones in order to increase their economic opportunity. However, that is not MY motive. Neither is it for MANY OTHERS. Thus, there is nothing more to argue about there. The only time such an argument is constructive is if someone argues and disagrees about the "most", but time and time again in this post, even if the arguments sometimes consist of the "most" quantifier, the disagreements are directed towards "you".

soozievt

RevDem, thank you for clarifying as I may have misunderstood. I also just was trying to state my position clearly as your summary of it wasn't an entirely accurate picture. No problem.

I agree with what you have just written. For certain there are SOME people whose aim is a brand name school and perceive that will translate into greater income. As can be seen on this thread, there are students like you, others who have posted, as well as my own kids who attend "elite" colleges but for different motives.

And just to be clear, I do think going to college, and even a "good" college will increase OPPORTUNITIES but I don't define those in economic terms. I believe you would be on that same wavelength.

River Phoenix

quite poetic olo

jazzkingrt

I used to play video games. When in middle school. When I think about now, I realize I've lost tons of time. Now, I realize I have much more fun with academic EC's. I joined science team freshman year, and I have not regretted it one bit. I've studied tree identification, heat transfer, engineering problems, built a marimba, an electric vehicle, an egg catcher. The list goes on. Tomorrow I'm going to go work on a robot. I mean come on. Video Games? When I'm forty, I will be able to tell my kids "hey, that's a sassafras! Wanna smell the pith inside the twigs?" I prefer that much more than telling them I got some score killing a monster in world of warcraft. I've never engaged in sports at school, by the way, but football, at least, keeps you fit.

sakky

I'm back. I'm sure you all are happy to see me again , ha ha.

Uh, actually, I think soozievt ultimately agreed with me that career considerations were ultimately a factor when she said:

And that's precisely what I'm talking about.

To wit: nowhere have I ever said that all MIT students are out to earn every single possible penny they can garner. But the ability to pursue the career opportunities that you want - that is valuable.

No I didn't. If you don't believe me, then please point to the quote where I specifically said that.

What I said is that is that people want the career opportunities that they desire, whatever those opportunities may be, and whether those opportunities are high-paying or not.

Interesting. Would you really be willing to tell the adcom that - specifically that you don't really care about graduating? Somehow I think that's going to hurt your chances of getting admitted. I doubt that there are many adcom officers who want to admit somebody who isn't really interested in actually graduating.

Actually, I would say that there is still a lot to argue about. Consider the thought exercise - let's say that MIT provided absolutely no boost in career opportunities whatsoever. None. That is, we live in a world where an MIT graduate has the exact same career opportunity choice set that somebody who never went at all. Be honest - how many people would still want to go?

sakky

Uh, yet at the end of the day, a significant percentage of MIT and (especially) Caltech students, relative to other top schools, do poorly. Heck, my brother, a Caltech alum, knew a few who actually flunked out. They were indeed - as you say - some of the smartest students in high school. But they did poorly at Caltech, poorly enough to not be able to graduate.

You don't have to fail all your courses. You just have to fail enough of them to land on academic probation, and from there, it's a short ride to expulsion.

The ideal is obviously that you study what you like and do well in it. But there is a big difference between the ideal and reality. As I said above, some MIT students do poorly. For them, Sloan is a highly useful safety net, as it's a lot better for them to switch to Sloan than to not even graduate at all.

Actually, I think now you're starting to agree with me. You said it yourself - sometimes you have to make tough decisions.

But I said it before, and I don't think anybody would dispute, there are some people at MIT who are doing poorly. Surely anybody who's been at MIT have seen people try out the most rigorous majors (i.e. course VI) and don't do well. It's what they like, it's what they wanted to do, but then they come to MIT and find out that it's just too hard for them. In that case, they may have to make the 'tough decision' to choose an easier major. Like Sloan.

Look, by no means am I trying to single out MIT in this respect. The truth is, this sort of 'arbitrage of majors' happens at most other engineering schools. For example, I know a lot of students at Berkeley who started off in EECS or Chemical Engineering and then ended up switching to something much easier. I think Alexandre (or maybe it was somebody else) discussed how many students at Michigan started off in engineering but then did poorly and hence switched to one of the easier humanities or soc-sci majors. It is simply the nature of most engineering schools - including MIT and Caltech - that some students will end up doing poorly. In fact, the curve almost guarantees that it be so.

Again, to reiterate, the presence of Sloan is therefore a great thing because it serves as a safety valve for those students who do poorly in other majors. That's not bad - it's good. At least those students can still graduate. That's a heck of a lot better than flunking them out entirely.

Look, it would be ideal if MIT (and Caltech) were to admit only those students who are going to do well in their intended major. In fact, ultimately, that's what I think all schools should do. But, like it or not, that doesn't happen. Whether we like it or not, some students who come in intending to be engineers at MIT (or Caltech or Berkeley or Michigan, etc.) end up doing poorly in engineering. Hence, the question then is what happens to these students? I would argue that giving the opportunity to switch to an easier major from which they can successfully graduate is the right thing to do. {Note, if they still insist on pursuing their desired major, they are free to try to transfer to another school. But at least they have the option to stay at their current school and still graduate, even if it's not in the major that they originally wanted.}

sakky

Uh, really? When did I say that? Please point to the quote where I specifically said that.

Why? Why should they have to? What's wrong with giving them the option to stay and pursue a major that they can handle? It seems to me that you want to take options away from people.

Note, I am certainly not requiring anybody to stay. Sure, if somebody wants to transfer out because they still want to pursue the major that they like (but in which they doing poorly in at MIT), they are free to do that. But I'm giving people more options. Seems to me that you don't want people to have more options.

Look, if you don't care about the option of going to Sloan, that's one thing. But to say that other people shouldn't have the option of going to Sloan, that's something else entirely.

Um, considering all of the words you've tried to put in my mouth and claiming that I made statements I never actually said, I could just as easily ask you where YOU learned telepathy? Again, when did I ever say that "most MIT students aren't following their dreams"? When did I ever say that "people... apparently go to college so they can buy a more expensive high-status car to show off to their neighbors."?