faraday

Hi, I'm trying to make a decision, and really need your help. I want to look for the kind of factors that make MIT>> other top institutions (think HYPSC). What made YOU turn down an awesome school for MIT? What made MIT better than those schools?

Thanks.

molliebatmit

Well, for full disclosure, I didn't turn down any top-caliber schools to go to MIT. But knowing what I know now, I wouldn't have chosen to go anywhere else.

I love the atmosphere at MIT, both socially and academically. I loved that I was able to push myself to learn and do and grow, but that I never felt that other students were competing with me -- I valued the collaborative atmosphere. I was able to take hard classes and do cutting-edge research, and I developed more as a scientist than I would have if I'd been somewhere that didn't value the intelligence of undergrads so much.

I really loved the freedom given to students in many aspects of MIT life. Students choose their living groups and the way they want to spend their dining money. Students can choose to take graduate-level classes and/or classes for which they don't have the prereqs.

I'll try not to wax poetic any longer, but I did write this blog entry on my feelings on MIT students as a whole.

faraday

Thanks Mollie! ... I'm trying to find that MIT light that can give me the courage to declare MIT class of 2013.

faraday

"I'd been somewhere that didn't value the intelligence of undergrads so much."

I'd be interested to know how much does this attitude from faculty/grad students/mentors differ at other top schools? From what I gather, Princeton also seems to take their undergrads really seriously. As for Stanford/Harvard, I don't know...

mathboy98

Faraday, I really think the number of great schools where faculty respect the undergrads immensely should be pretty miniscule. The faculty of great schools are, in a sense, usually insanely, wildly, godly intellectuals, and they have no reason to acknowledge the presence of most undergraduates! I would strongly suspect that this culture is somewhat unique to MIT.

Though, here is my remark -- I've had a conversation with a few of my friends who're humanities majors at my school. And they seem to have had numerous fun little conversations with several of their professors. Most of my professors in mathematics have been utterly terrifying geniuses whom I approach with caution, and I'm pretty outgoing with professors compared to most. You do meet some very friendly ones, but the famous professors often can be very aloof.

Another thing -- I know from postdocs who have seen both MIT and several other schools that MIT seems to have a culture of relatively advanced folk teaching the undergraduates. For instance, supposedly (from a postdoc at my school who's going to be a postdoc at MIT next year) postdocs many times coach discussion sections to lecture courses? Mollie may back this up. This is relatively less common or unheard of in other schools; perhaps at Stanford, for instance. Generally, graduate students will coach these.

Now, of course graduate students at MIT are brilliant enough people to coach most of these sections. But, I want to (potentially invalidly) apply what is intuitively indicated to me, which is that very accomplished faculty, not postdocs, may routinely be teaching undergraduates at MIT, and as I'd believe Mollie's words that they seem to respect undergraduates, this can make for a uniquely stellar experience. It's not often that famous, wild geniuses are actually willing to talk to the likes of "lowly undergraduates," and routinely are in contact with them.

I recall from one of Mollie's posts that what makes MIT a great place to achieve is the amazing student body + who you're in contact with. It may be that you'll just push yourself more in such an environment. Well, extend this and say the kinds of faculty I described are routinely in contact with you, and think of how inspiring that could be. Could be just the kind of inspirational boost you need to do your best in college.

faraday

Yeah, mathboy, I totally understand you. A quick look at the faculty page publications is enough for you to even ask, "Why the hell is this guy even teaching me?"... And certainly, you don't need professors to teach intro classes, as they are pretty archetypically structured. Most of the intro/intermediate materials are so basic that a professor is really not needed. It's like asking me to teach kindergarden kids how to count.

I was more thinking about research opportunities, which are when interaction with mentors who take you seriously is much more important, since you are more likely to take on a project of your own idea, thus branch out and enjoy more. But once again, I don't know if MIT> HYP for those kind of things. I can't find undergrad's publications statistics (What % of undergrads end up getting a 1st/2nd author publication in a academic journal?), so I can't really compare to HYP.

sakky

My brother turned down MIT for one simple reason: Caltech offered him a full ride.

mathboy98

As a comment, I'd look *most* at how willing the faculty are to work with undergraduates, less at raw statistics like this. Becaue if the faculty are willing, and you're willing and enthusiastic, there you go, you found your match, and good things will happen.

Oh, and I honestly think that it's great for the faculty of that caliber to encourage undergraduates. Maybe not in intro classes, but in some of the more advanced classes, there can actually be some pretty good insight they can bring in, even at a level accessible to you. My point was actually that if these faculty are going to be teaching you, you have all the more chance to "befriend them". I'd ask the same question to someone who's seen both MIT and HYP and can offer an unbiased opinion.

I somehow don't believe math and physics faculty at most top schools would really respect the undergraduates that much.

faraday

"I somehow don't believe math and physics faculty at most top schools would really respect the undergraduates that much. "

you'll be surprised at learning about the academic rockstars I talked to during MIT CPW... as a prefrosh!

mathboy98

Right, I mean if MIT faculty really are like that, it is probably unique to that school to a great extent. Otherwise, the faculty would probably disregard all but the most advanced MIT students (i.e. this is what I think happens at most schools).

Though, the ones who talked to you at any "orientation" type day may be faculty unusually enthusiastic about catering to younger ones. I actually know one basically world-class professor at my school who is arguably nicer to undergraduates than to grad students; i.e., if you're just a student, he is kind, but if you try to, say, research with him, he'll coldly shun you unless you're absolutely the best of the best. Everyone he has advised has basically gone on to become of the caliber that gets tenured at a school like MIT, and probably solves something really ridiculously big.

molliebatmit

At MIT, about a fifth of undergrads end up getting published an an academic journal. (And the number among science majors alone is likely considerably higher -- engineers don't really seem to publish.) I ended up getting a 5th author publication in a very good journal in my field, and writing a first author paper of my own, which hasn't been published. I think the 5th author pub is more valuable for my CV than the 1st author pub will be if it's ever published.

Everybody who wants to do research can do research. Officially, about 80% of students participate in UROP, but that number is a low estimate because not everybody who has a research job has UROP funds, and those people don't have to report to the UROP office. I suspect that the actual number of students who have a research job at some point is very close to 100%.

pebbles

I think if your aim is to be published, and you are not completely incompetent, it's 100% achievable. I'm /not/ published, but I had the opportunity to take a UROP with the promise of a publication within 1 year my sophomore year, instead I picked another one in which I felt like I'd have more fun and make a bigger contribution.

sleck

my reasons: for the people at MIT and Boston. I was leaning towards princeton until I realized that there's not much in Princeton,NJ. and well New Heaven...

CalAlum

My daughter turned down several top-tier schools for MIT. She was fairly certain about her choice going in to April and absolutely certain after CPW. It's hard to explain, but I'll try with a little story.

As a parent, I attended an August event where president Susan Hockfield was to speak to an audience composed of students and parents. As students streamed in to the auditorium and we waited for the event to begin, Hockfield said something like, "The students aren't waiting to meet me. They're waiting to meet each other." Now, these are probably not her exact words, but the truth of this statement hit me at the time. My daughter found the most exciting aspect of MIT to be the students themselves.

Somewhere on this board a current MIT student wrote something like, "If you come to MIT, we'll welcome you with open arms." I've also found that to be true.

I do think a specific kind of person self-selects to enroll at MIT, and if you're a great fit, you'll know it.

sakky

I'm actually a bit surprised by this. What I can tell you is that in the social sciences and in management - and Sloan management is the #3 most popular major at MIT - it is practically impossible to have anything actually published as an undergrad, simply because the publication lag times are so long. Heck, there are even assistant professors of management or economics at the top schools who still haven't published a single paper.

But then again, Sloanies usually don't care about publication anyway. They usually just want to get a decent job.