sakky

Again, wrong. Please point to the quote where I said that money is the "only end" or the only thing that "matters in the real world". Oh, can't do it, can you?

What I said is that money is one thing that matters. Obviously plenty of other things matter too, and I never claimed that they didn't.

Ben, in the future, if you want to debate me, I have a word of simple advice to you. Debate what I actually said. Not what you apparently want me to say, but what I actually say.

Interesting that you would make such a statement when both of you have attempted to claim that I made statements that I never actually said. Ben, by all means, feel free to live in your little world where you think I made statements that I never actually did, and where you apparently think you have epistemic access to what I actually believe.

Again, I never said it was 'meaningless'.

But to the notion of it being a 'social fad', why that so controversial, except for the verbiage that is being used? Look, the fact is, rigorous intellectualism is a cultural trait just like any other social characteristic. That hardly makes it 'bad', it just means that it is subject to the same social pressures that other characteristics are. To say otherwise - that it is not subject to any social pressures at all - now that would be a deeply controversial statement.

But I think you have not addressed the key point, which has to do with the boundaries of rigor. Sure, rigor is great for those who can handle it. But what about those who can't? It is precisely for those who can't handle the rigor is why having safety nets around is a great thing. Sure, if you don't need the safety net, then you don't care. But what if you do need it?

sakky

And this is precisely why I think that the Sloan School is so important to the social dynamic at MIT.

As a case in point, how many of you know that Sloan management is actually one of the largest undergrad majors on campus - in fact, something like the #3 or #4 most popular undergrad major (I can't remember the exact figure)? Of course, I think it is quite well know that Sloan grants, by far, the most master's degrees (the MBA) of any major on campus, but it also bears mentioning that Sloan confers numerous bachelor's degrees also.

Now, obviously Sloan is still dwarfed by the size of the School of Engineering as a whole (aggregated across every engineering major). But the point is, you now can find a community of people at MIT who are not so technically minded, who are more interested in 'softer' topics like leadership or communication or negotiation. Granted, it's not a very large community. But it's a lot better than nothing, and in particular, is a lot better than how it used to be in terms of social support (as the Sloan ug program used to be significantly smaller in the past).

See, right there, that's the real problem. I never actually said that MIT students care only about money and nothing else. I said they care about having the career they want (as long as it pays decently), but not that they care only solely about money. Nevertheless, LauraN claims that I said that, and now everybody simply assumes that I did.

So, to wit, what I would recommend is that for those who want to dispute me, please as a first step, carefully read what I actually said. Not what somebody claims that I said, but what I actually said. And put it in the proper context.

Otherwise, I don't see why I should even bother saying anything at all. Y'all can simply have a debate over what people claim that I said.

differential

@Sakky: One problem I have with the idea of some majors being easier than the others is that it compromises what seems to be an important idea at MIT.

Notice that there is no ranking at graduation, no latin honors, no honorary degrees, and that the brass rat ring is in a way a symbol of equality among the student body. It means that when you meet another MIT student, you can be sure that they have worked really really hard, and achieved a level of competence matched by few others.

This is what the reputation of the school rests upon, the idea that through and through the students have reached a very very very high bar of competence. It also inspires a sense of comradery, because you count on your peers to be able to share your burden and together move forward. A team is only as great as its weakest link. And ultimately history and life are conquered by the winners.

Now you suggest that all the kids who found engineering/science "too hard" go to Sloan. I feel that Sloan should not be designed as a safety net, but rather a school that really pushes forward the best of the best in terms of entrepreneurs.

I read an interesting article in the Tech very recently in which they were talking to the new admissions director. He said he was going to start slightly shifting the admissions office's focus to bring in kids who have a sincere interest in science, mathematics and technology. Even if they want to do other things, central is that they display a strong interest in science, mathematics and technology.


Also, 5 lengthy posts in a row? Damn.

sakky

Look, let's be realistic. Every school has some majors that are easier/harder than others. Can you imagine a school where every single major was of the exact same difficulty level? Surely you would agree that that's impossible. In fact, that's precisely why some people at MIT say that certain majors are more "hard-core" than others.

This all gets back to some basic points that I have been making throughout this thread that is perhaps the difference between me and others here, which I summarize with the following questions: who exactly are the 'winners'? And what does it mean to 'win'. Like I noted before, Sloan grads earn some of the highest starting salaries of any of the majors at MIT. Perhaps even more relevantly, Stanford engineering grads also earn quite high salaries despite going to a school that offers a relatively relaxed environment.

Now, before everybody tries to jump down my throat again, let me clarify that I am not saying that money is the only thing that matters. What I am saying is that this really all gets down to existential questions of what does it mean to 'win', what does it mean to be a 'team', what does it mean to be a 'weak link'? I would strongly dispute the notion that Sloan grads are somehow 'weak links' or that they are not part of the 'team' or that they are somehow 'losers'. Employers also seem not to think that Sloan grads are 'losers', for if otherwise, why would they pay them such high salaries? Why not just save money by paying them less? Similarly, the Stanford 'team' doesn't seem to be any worse for the wear just because it's practically impossible to actually flunk out there. Or heck, look at Harvard. That's a school that is significantly less rigorous than MIT. Yet can anybody deny the 'winningness' of Harvard?

But again, it all depends on your definition of 'winning'. If your definition is that 'winning' is a purely internal psychological matter of completing extremely rigorous work just for the pure satisfaction of doing so, then that's fine, but then we have to ask whether that definition is truly a meaningful one for others.

First of all, what's wrong with that? I think safety nets aren't bad things, indeed the opposite: they are great things. If Sloan has to be that safety net, then so be it. That's vastly better than not having a safety net at all.

Look, this is akin to how many humanities and social science majors serve as de-facto "safety nets" at other schools. For example, take Berkeley, a school that I know very well. Of the people who got weeded out of one of the Berkeley engineering majors, many of them simply ended up declaring one of the humanities/social science majors like Peace and Conflict Studies or Ethnic Studies or Film Studies. {In fact, it's a continuing irony at Berkeley that so many majors that have the words "Studies" in their names don't actually require a lot of 'studying'). Now, granted, one might say that these disciplines shouldn't be serving as 'safety nets'. But I would argue that that's a heck of a lot better than just tossing those students out completely. At least those Berkeley students can still get a Berkeley degree.

Now, where I would agree with you is that maybe Berkeley shouldn't be admitting those students in the first place, and similarly, maybe MIT shouldn't be admitting those students who need that safety net. True, very true. But given that MIT can't or won't stop admitting these students, then I think it's a great thing that MIT would provide a safety net, and if that has to be done through Sloan, so be it. Far better that than no net at all.

But note, the key difference between Berkeley and MIT is that MIT's safety net is far more marketable than Berkeley's safety net. For example, you graduate with a degree in Peace and Conflict Studies from Berkeley and there aren't exactly a whole lot of high-paying employment options available to you (although it's still clearly better than not even having a degree at all). But with an MIT Sloan degree, you have ample opportunity to nab numerous high-paying jobs. {To reiterate, I'm not saying that money is the only thing that matters. But, ceteris paribus, it's clearly better to have money than to not have it.}

And besides, Sloan is not the only course that is doing this. Molliebatmit once specifically stated that one of her majors, BCS (course IX), is considered to be a relatively easy major at MIT. {Note, for those who would dispute that, take it up with her, as I'm not the one who said it.} Hence, one could say that BCS is also a 'safety net'. The upshot is that there will always be some majors that are easier than others.

Ha! That's a nice ideal. But the fact of the matter is, many (probably most) Sloan undergrads do not found or join startups. Instead, they (unsurprisingly) end up in consulting or finance as can be seen on p. 13 of the following pdf.

http://web.mit.edu/career/www/infost...aduation07.pdf

I don't think that should be shocking. After all, that's grads from the top B-schools tend to do: end up in consulting or finance. For example, most of the Sloan MBA grads similarly end up in consulting or finance (which includes investment banking, investment management, diversified financial services, VC/PE, etc.)

http://mitsloan.mit.edu/pdf/fullreport06_07.pdf

Hey, don't get me wrong. I like science. I like technology. I like math.

But the truth of the matter is that the world is made up of more than just science and math. You also need strong communications and diplomacy skills. The perennial stereotype of the MIT grad is a person who knows what the right answer is, but can't convince others of it. Former MIT Dean Ann Friedlaender once infamously said that "Too many M.I.T. graduates end up working for too many Princeton and Harvard graduates."

M.I.T. LOOKS BEYOND ENGINEERING - New York Times

Again, one of the great things of the Sloan School is that it can teach you how to deal with social and institutional forces, and that's a highly realistic and practical style of education.