Is MIT losing it?

Colleges & Universities Massachusetts Institute of Technology
81

<p>


 scientist,</p>

<p>I was on the phone earlier today with Susan Hockfield; I notified her of MIT's dire situation and she hastily read the incisive analysis you provided. She was duly alarmed and has ordered MIT to Force Protection Condition Charlie, instructing all nonessential personnel to hastily gain momentum. Indeed, she halted the production of Missed It Totally signs to devote more resources to momentum-generation.</p>

<p>The latest polls show MIT running a close second, neck-and-neck with Barack Obama, but most Iowa voters remain undecided.</p>

<p>In the meantime, while Internet ■■■■■■ constructed meaningless tallies, students at Berkeley, Caltech, MIT, and Stanford did real work and scholars conducted real research to make the world a smarter and better place. Imagine that.

</p>

82

<p>One day later, Susan Hockfield called upon MIT provost Rafael Reif and MIT dean of engineering school Thomas Magnanti into her office for a discussion of MIT’s future. The three were cautiously optimistic about the status of MIT. After all, the institute still enjoyed a huge reputation in technology. For instance, its engineering school had been ranked #1 in US NEWS for years and still had most membership in the national academy of engineering. But they realized MIT had lost its leading role in technology inventions to a west coast school named Stanford. They could not figure out why MIT got its ass kicked by Stanford in high tech. Even though Reif and Magnanti both recieved their ph.d from Stanford, they could not tell what Stanford had done differently in breeding new technologies. The three agreed it migh be good for the institute to throw the “MIT=engineering and engineering=MIT” sign into a trash can for good, because this sign did nothing but embarassing MIT. They also agreed MIT did not have to competete against Stanford for the #1 spot in technology inventions at this point, because MIT was lack of momentum right now and the chance of winining was dim. However, they would put the institute’s all possible resource to fight fiercely for the # 2 spot in technology inventions for the years to come.</p>

83

<p>Personally, I think choosing a college should only be based on academic quality. Maybe im a little different than most people; Ive moved around a lot and I can be happy pretty much anywhere. From my experience though, you cant really tell how much you will like a place until you have lived there about half a year or so. If you are leaning towards any specific fields of engineering/science/math, check out the departments of each school and see what they have to offer. Dont forget that they all dont offer the same majors either.</p>

84

<p>

</p>

<p>I think you are mistaken. I don’t know any university that is actually “ahead” of MIT in computer science, EE, mechanical or civil engineering. Maybe there are universities that are “tied” with MIT in those areas, but not ahead. As for liberal arts, MIT is a tech school, not a liberal arts college. Still, it has one of the strongest economics programs in the world.</p>

85

<p>

</p>

<p>People like Alan Newell, Edward Feigenbaum, Dana Scott, and Raj Reedy are far more associated with CMU than Stanford, so counting their Turing Awards on the Stanford column is controversial to say the least (like the controversial Nobel lists on the Wikipedia).</p>

86

<p>Newell got his B.S from Stanford. Reddy got his ph.d from Stanford and taught there for a few years. Scott is a former professor at Stanford. Feigenbaum has been a long time professor at Stanford for more than 20 years and is still there. I understand the first 3 people stayed longer at CMU than at Stanford, not Feigenbaum though.</p>

87

<p>I don’t think that the Original poster is correct in saying that MIT has lost its way. However, i think there is some merit to the convictions that in an effort to be more gender/race balanced, MIT has become less innovative while maintaining its status as an educational powerhouse.
I think people should note that I am an MIT reject but have nothing against the school and still respect its standing as the premier technical institute in the world.</p>

88

<p>As a person who applied to Stanford, Caltech and MIT (was rejected by MIT, accepted by Caltech, Stanford has yet to release decisions), I think I’m relatively unbiased in looking at the schools, free of any tinted lenses that might incline me towards one or another.</p>

<p>Having said that, this thread topic is a load of total *****. MIT isn’t losing it in any way. It is still one of the premier institutions in the world, and generally considered to be the best for engineering. To say that the fact that other schools are competing is a sign of MIT losing its grip is nonsense. MIT is spectacular as ever - but other schools are improving. That said, Stanford, Cal, Caltech and so forth have all been close to or on par with MIT in certain fields for a long time.</p>

<p>Scientist and datalook, you two are shameless ■■■■■■. Especially scientist - your posts have simply been wheedling attempts to get a rise out of others. Datalook, you’re not as bad, but instead of simply ■■■■■■■■, you make crappy arguments (posting ~20 inventions by Stanford grads, out of the countless thousands both Stanford and MIT have made over the years and continue to make is not an argument), and then ignore the refutations others make (for example the other lists of MIT-produced innovations people have made, or the fact that every innovation you list from Stanford has to do with computer sciecne or engineering, which believe it or not is not everything). Even when the most clear rebuttal to your approach of assigning innovations was made (the fact that most innovations come from people affiliated with several institutions, or shared between institutions altogether), you continue to ignore it. This shouldn’t be surprising though, since looking over your post history, almost every post is about which engineering program is best in the US, and you’re almost always trotting Stanford out. You’ve done almost nothing on this board but ■■■■■. Congratulations.</p>

<p>To defend myself against future accusations of bias: I hope to be accepted to Stanford, because if I do it’s quite likely I’ll attend. MIT was always 3rd of the 3 for me (Caltech, Stanford, MIT being the 3). So by no means am I some MIT sock puppet. I just recognize pig-headed idiocy and bad arguments where I see them.</p>

89

<p>Stanford has , in the last 20 years, established itself as the leader in computer related fields. That is something, if nothing else, the wealth of its graduates attests to. (CMU has also been very successful. They seem to be winning in various compettions.) In civil, chemical, and biomedical engineering the honor of being “the top dog” belongs to UCB ( they are also the best in EE.) Caltech, and Johns Hopkins. In Mechanical engineering and related fields MIT is tied with two other universities. Putting its name, the bias , and their salesmanship aside what makes it the premier technical school. Please do not say Sloan and Ocean.</p>

90

<p>This is the clearest ■■■■■ symptom --each new post by someone else is not viewed as an argument to engage with in even a superficial way, but just as a separator so you can post the same thing over and over and over again.</p>

<p>And the technological innovation of ■■■■■■■■ is not even pioneered by Stanford-- you are shamelessly stealing a Harvard technology!</p>

91

<p>Welcome back. Everyone can use a good laugh.</p>

92

<p>Ben, what is your point except calling other people a ■■■■■? How about yourself? Isn’t it fair to just call yourself a Caltech ■■■■■, and now a MIT ■■■■■?</p>

93

<p>I think a comparison of your posting record and mine will settle the issue better than any other reply :)</p>

94

<p>Ben, don’t be too shy. Your record definitely makes you qualified to be a ■■■■■, a Caltech ■■■■■. How come you become a MIT ■■■■■ in these days? Are you attending MIT now?</p>

<p>I haven’t seen any valid point made from you except accusing people with nasty words. Is this the way you Caltech and MIT people normally use when disagree with people? Professor David Patterson at Berkeley once said that MIT people usually made their points by screaming. I feel the same way now.</p>

<p>If you don’t know who David Patterson is, he is the chairman of ACM. Along with IBM’s John Cocke and Stanford’s John Hennessy, David Patterson is a pioneer in RISC, another milestone in computing.</p>

95

<p>

</p>

<p>I couldn’t have said it better. well said 1of42</p>

96

<p>urbandictionary.com:</p>

<p>■■■■■:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>1211 up, 86 down
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.</p></li>
<li><p>446 up, 76 down
One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. ‘you’re nothing but a fanboy’ is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevance to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Ben Golub does not go around saying Caltech is the best nor is MIT the best. And no one is screaming… everyone is just fed up with “pig-headed idiocy and bad arguments.”</p>

97

<p>


Scientist and datalook, you two are shameless ■■■■■■.

This shows nothing but your immaturity. Hope you didn’t show that in your essay when applying for Stanford. Otherwise you are automatically rejected.


Especially scientist - your posts have simply been wheedling attempts to get a rise out of others. Datalook, you're not as bad, but instead of simply ■■■■■■■■, you make crappy arguments (posting ~20 inventions by Stanford grads, out of the countless thousands both Stanford and MIT have made over the years and continue to make is not an argument), and then ignore the refutations others make (for example the other lists of MIT-produced innovations people have made, or the fact that every innovation you list from Stanford has to do with computer sciecne or engineering, which believe it or not is not everything).

I was listing the milestone inventions I know about from Stanford. I believe they have significantly changed our daily life. I could not find many contributions from MIT since 1970 that are at that level. It is a burden for MIT people to prove that MIT is as good as Stanford in technology inventions. So far I havn't been convinced it is as good. Sakky's MIT inventions list is much less impressive, which I have pointed out. What is wrong about that?

We are talking about engineering on this thread. Nobody said computer science and engineering is everything. 


Even when the most clear rebuttal to your approach of assigning innovations was made (the fact that most innovations come from people affiliated with several institutions, or shared between institutions altogether), you continue to ignore it.

Nobody said Stanford made those inventions alone. But Stanford indeed has lots of ties to those great inventions. When Sakky claimed MIT’s contribution in MATLAB and mathwork, did he mention both inventors are Stanford graduates? NO. He only mentioned John Little, a MIT graduate, leaving out the most important person behind MATLAB, Cleve Moler. When Sakky talked about GENETECH, he talked about Swanson alone because Swanson graduated from MIT. Did he mention a more important founder, professor Boyer from UCSF? NO. Without Boyer and Cohen Stanley’s work in gene cloning, the biotechnology industry would not exist today. </p>

<p>Finally, one word for you. Calling people shameless has already put down yourself. I hope you will not learn this in a hard way in your life.</p>

98

<p>I don’t believe anyone has addressed this interesting part of the OP’s post. </p>

<p>

They had never heard of Harvard?</p>

99

<p>


Ben Golub does not go around saying Caltech is the best nor is MIT the best. And no one is screaming... everyone is just fed up with "pig-headed idiocy and bad arguments."g

</p>

<p>Really ???</p>

100

<p>Wow, datalook, post 82 was fascinating and insightful. You managed to introduce <em>so</em> much relevant data, form a cohesive and persuasive argument, and reveal a shocking amount of maturity as well. You then proceeded to accuse us all of “screaming” because we refuse to let you make absurd claims without entertaining the idea that anyone else has something useful to say. I’m not screaming, and neither is anyone else. But trust me, I appreciate the gross overgeneralization you made about people from MIT. Apparently, since telling us that we no longer make any positive contributions to society has not broken our spirits and made us bow down to your “superior” arguments, you have to resort to calling us immature, whiny screamers incapable of making logical arguments who would never get into Stanford. </p>

<p>Oh the horror. My life would be so much better if I had only gone to Stanford. I could have really <em>been</em> somebody important then. Unfortunately, I’m stuck at this lousy place called MIT. Trust me, I’m aware of how bleak the future is. I spend my days in front of the mirror practicing the line, “Would you like fries with that?”</p>