<p>I’m doing a research on MIT, and I have noticed that the term “useful knowledge” is a common frase in MIT-documents, books, statements etc. In Julius Strattons Book “Mind and Hand” “useful knowledge” or “useful” is written more than I can count (not that I’m counting).
(you’ll have to excuse my English. I’m from Denmark)</p>
<p>In the MIT ‘mission statement’ it is written: </p>
<p>"…science, technology and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world…
(…)
“The institute is committed to generating, disseminating, and preserving knowledge…to bring this knowledge to bear on the world’s great challenge”.</p>
<p>That sounds beautifully. I know that it sounds pretty naive and simplistic, but how can one define knowledge as “useful” opposed to knowledge that is “not” useful. </p>
<p>I have read pepper Whites book “The idea factory” and to me useful knowledge became equivalent to good grades, money-making and staying alive at MIT. Is that not the same issues that other educational institions deal with?</p>
<p>My second question is. If one can determine useful knowledge, how does members at MIT learn, do research, teach collaborate toward useful knowledge. Is there a special (several) approach? </p>
<p>I’m interested in your oppinion, maby a story or an anecdote</p>
<p>My opinion - all knowledge is useful, depending on if/how you use it.</p>
<p>I’m a biology major. While knowledge from different fields all come into play in different ways, biology classes are going to be more directly useful to what I want to do than physics classes. I’m interested in taking a topology class at some point - and while it will give me knowledge and I could probably apply some of it to biology, another biology class would be more useful to me.</p>
<p>Useful info is subjective. I personally thing every kinds of info, every bit of info can be useful.But some knowledge is more important more useful.For me most useful ones are “science , engineering, psychology(yes its also a science), philosophy”.But for my friend most useful ones are “football(not playing skill just info about players and teams), getting laid techniques,…”</p>
<p>So useful knowledge in the cases of Piper and Dex has to do with knowledge that is useful to “you” in terms of interest and possible future jobs. etc.? </p>
<p>But what about the teachers, prof. and research-people? Do they not do research and teach in relation to “… the betterment of humankind” and “…knowledge that will serve the nation and the world” (MIT-mission)?</p>
<p>What advices do the authority give students for applying certain courses opposed to other courses. Does it merely have to with the students’ own interests.</p>
<p>There is some job pattern for students, like art+computerprograming=web designer students can follow pattern for their future jobs, also they can make their own combinations.There is lots of majors and minors you can select and combine.They simple offers different kinds of knowledge. </p>
<p>knowledge doesn’t helps the human kind -no knowledge can-, user of the knowledge can do good or harm.“knowledge that will serve” knowledge serves, its just a tool.There no kind of knowledge can help people.For example the medical knowledge: you can use it to save life, doctors use it save lives everyday but also ninja’s(they was criminal assassins) have medical knowledge, they use it to find weak spots in human body and kill their enemies easily. </p>
<p>by the way what courses are opposed the other courses? </p>
<p>I’m not a mit student nor I know any of the stuff members but this philosophy doesn’t merely belong to the any school or organization.I also embraced same philosophy myself that’s also why I’m trying to get in to MIT.</p>
<p>The term “useful knowledge” was commonly used in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to refer to knowledge that would improve society. This was most often interpreted to include engineering, mechanics, science, and so on. William Barton Rogers, the founder of MIT, contributed to a journal titled “The Messenger of Useful Knowledge.” During the early national period in U.S. history there were a variety of societies devoted to useful knowledge, including the American Philosophical Society, one of the earliest scientific societies in the country. </p>
<p>If you simply Google “useful knowledge and history of science” in Google Scholar, you’ll encounter a mass of scholarly articles on this topic.</p>
<p>I have encountered the same historical thread of useful knowledge as a way to improve society (CalAlum). But how is the meaning of useful knowledge from the foundings of MIT different from the way MIT (and some MIT-members) represents itself today?: </p>
<p>“…science, technology and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world…” (mission statement). </p>
<p>“I think it was around junior year that it occurred to me that although MIT is one of the best places in the world to learn how to solve problems, many of the world’s most pressing problems were not at MIT” (Student at MISTI-project). </p>
<p>Is it the generel motivation for studying, applying and do research at MIT to solve “real-world” problems? </p>
<p>How does a student at MIT “learn how to solve problems”? In Pepper Whits book, he was always told to “do problems”. In his context the “doing problem” was about engeneering and equations. But whether it’s world-problem or an engeneering-problem how does students or other members at MIT approach it as a problem that needs to be solved? </p>
<p>I would like to know more about this problem-solving or “do problems”.</p>