Lemmings

Parents Forum
81

"MIT is closer to UChicago than it is to Caltech. "

I dont think so. Certaintly NOT at the UG level.

MIT is a bigger version of CT, with a few additional majors , such as Linguistics, Economics . It is still a STEM focused college at the UG level.
That does not make it closer to the College of U of Chicago than to CT.

this is from the current mission statement of MIT:
"At its founding in 1861, MIT was an educational innovation, a community of hands-on problem solvers in love with fundamental science and eager to make the world a better place. Today, that spirit still guides how we educate students on campus and how we shape new digital learning technologies to make MIT teaching accessible to millions of learners around the world. "
http://web.mit.edu/aboutmit/

Undergraduate Education at MIT

MIT is committed to providing students with an education, grounded in SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY

http://due.mit.edu/undergraduate-education-mit/undergraduate-education-mit

This is what CT says:
“The mission of the California Institute of Technology is to expand human knowledge and benefit society through research integrated with education. We investigate the most challenging, fundamental problems in SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY in a singularly collegial, interdisciplinary atmosphere, while educating outstanding students to become creative members of society.”

https://www.caltech.edu/content/caltech-glance

this is what the College of Chicago has to say:
" A transformative education

Our education empowers individuals to challenge conventional thinking in pursuit of original ideas. Students in the undergraduate College broaden their perspectives on world issues in the rigorous Core curriculum"
http://www.uchicago.edu/about/

I dont see the words" Science" and “Technology” in Chicago’s UG missions statement, do you?
I’m not fixated on the “name” of a college, contrary to your incorrect assumption. I’m comparing what college’s focuses are.
Chicago is far closer to Harvard or Yale or Columbia in their overall UG academic focus than to MIT or CT.

82

Lemming behavior implies that the creatures follow mindlessly to a bad outcome. Students purposely selecting a top STEM focused school largely for STEM studies for a fabulous career afterwards is anything but lemming behavior.

83

MIT’s Infamous Dancing Lemming Humanities Majors
…
(--) …(--)
…( (>… ( (>
…/ \ … /
OOOOOOOOO
OO.THE.OOOO
OO.CLIFF.OOO
O.OF.DOOM!.O

OOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOO…(--)

OOOOOOOOO…( (>…(--)/…(-_-)/
oooooooooooo^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
…The Great MIT STEM SEA

NOTE: The above is a joke and should not be assume to be an effort at making some type of point (or even of making any type of sense… :-bd

84

UF is now known for its text art training too, so it seems :slight_smile:

85

@jym626 Nope :-S

86

We didn’t have such training when I was there…

87

Sidebar: When I was there, when dinosaurs roamed the earth, I was chatting with some young man when the topic of his major/graduate study came up. I asked him what he was studying, to which he responded "“What UF is most known for”. I quipped “Gatorade?”

88

BTW even at Caltech you don’t have to major in the sciences. I knew someone in the 1980’s who majored in English. She had plans to go on into science writing. There are still a handful taking that route: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/15/local/la-me-caltech-20120615

Oh and Caltech has a top Economics department according to at least one ranking. http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-humanities-schools/california-institute-of-technology-110404

89

@menloparkmom, more than a few.

MIT offers 28 non-STEM majors:
http://mitadmissions.org/discover/majors

Caltech offers 7 non-STEM majors:
https://www.admissions.caltech.edu/content/options-majors

By comparison, UChicago offers 37 non-STEM majors:
https://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/academics/majors-minors

And yes, MIT does say that their education is grounded in science and technology. Their core is more STEM-heavy than, say, UChicago’s. But this is the rest of what they say:
“Inspires a passion for learning;
Encourages students to explore through undergraduate research and experiential learning;
Recognizes the importance of making intellectual connections and discoveries outside the classroom;
Prepares students to meet the challenges of a global economy and global society;
Strengthens respect for diverse cultures, experience, and knowledge;
Values and encourages the role of mentors and advisors; and
Facilitates the development of leadership skills.
Through their educational experience, MIT students develop a personal and intellectual identity that empowers them to serve as the next generation of creative thinkers and leaders in our global society.”

None of that is particular to STEM.

90

I know that. CT and MIT are core+ STEM focus.
Chicago, Columbia, are core w/o the + Stem focus

91

Slight quibble…that may be true of Columbia College…but certainly not Columbia SEAS which has a strong STEM focus and a core which focuses much more on STEM courses as one would expect from an engineering school.

92

^Well ,sure – Columbia’s SEAS
Is an engineering school after all

93

I just… don’t get this thread.

It is true that MIT has great offerings outside the sciences. It may be true that there are some students crossing MIT off their lists because of insufficient information about the strength of those offerings.

However, “my primary and maybe even secondary interest is not STEM-related” is a perfectly good reason not to apply to a school that requires a lot of STEM classes and overwhelmingly attracts students interested in those subjects, just like “I want to go to school in an urban area” is a perfectly good reason not to apply to Dartmouth or Grinnell. Yes, MIT has many strong programs, but if you aren’t looking for a particular sort of academic culture and intellectual climate, it wouldn’t seem to be a great fit. And I say this as someone who thinks fit is overrated in most cases.

94

From post #11:

I am not sure that students majoring in business are truly weaker.
I think some of the 18 business major graduates probably also double major in STEM.

And we probably cannot call a highly achieving guy like Larry Summers a weaker.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers

95

MIT just created a new economics major with higher math dosage: Mathematical Economics (course 14-2).

http://economics.mit.edu/under/majors

96

I was speaking mainly about the perceptions of the majority of MIT students who are STEM majors…especially those who are hardcore about their STEM majors.

In the hardcore STEM academic culture, especially at institutions like MIT, Econ/business are considered “gut/fallback” majors for former aspiring STEM majors who found they “couldn’t hack it” in STEM.

Even Industrial Engineering/Operations Research is considered a major with far more academic gravitas among those with the “STEM uber alles” mentality. Keep in mind that within engineering schools…IEOR is considered the “slacker” econ/business major equivalent among hardcore engineering majors.

In short, Larry Summers’ academic bio above would just confirm to that crowd that he was a “STEM washout” and thus, a “weak student” by their estimation.

This mentality is carried over among some STEM grad students as well.

A friend who was doing his PhD at MIT in a natural science field recounted hearing about how senior Profs in his department and some other STEM departments were a bit perturbed* to find several PhD grad students had somehow simultaneously enrolled themselves into the MBA program at Sloan.

They only found out about it at a commencement exercise when they were shocked to find several of their PhD students being called up to receive their Sloan MBAs while they were simultaneously enrolled as PhD students in their STEM departments.

  • Most PhD programs tend to frown upon grad students who undertake outside activities/jobs which are perceived as taking dedication, energy, and focus away from coursework/research directly related to their PhD program. This includes graduate programs completely irrelevant/separate from the department's PhD program even if they're on the same campus.
97

^ I don’t understand the logic.

If the students completed the PhD program, it means that they satisfied all of the PhD requirements and wrote theses that were good enough for the advisors to sign. Bravo! It’s not easy to get a PhD at MIT.

If, on top of all that, they were able to get an MBA at Sloan, I would think that would be all the more impressive and admirable, even to the STEM departments and students’ advisors. Learning outside of one’s STEM interest and taking advantage of academic opportunities is admired by everyone, right?

Of course, it IS a bit shady to keep it a secret. These PhD students should simply put it out in the open.

By the same logic, pursuing a minor in a non-STEM subject at MIT would be frowned upon by the STEM professors. Everything that I’ve read indicates that minors are completely acceptable at MIT.

98

I don’t understand the logic either. Why would normal people with normal self-esteem care that allegedly, their STEM major classmates think that their non-STEM majors are gut classes? Normal people do what they want to do and major in what they want to major in without caring what other people think. Do you think communications majors give a rat’s behind if engineers look down on them? Normal people just don’t go through life always worrying about how they are “regarded” by random classmates.

99

I’m not sure anyone here can talk about “perceptions of the majority of MIT students who are STEM majors.” And certainly not based on some anecdotes, some from years ago.

The savviest are busy with their own work and that they do in collaboration with peers, not forming some artificial hierarchy to bump their own egos. Quality will out.

100

LF, I believe the word you are looking for to describe those students who (allegedly) spend their time ranking people by majors and decreeing their own to be at the top is “loser.” Their “opinions” are like trees falling in the forest and are no consequence to others.