<p>First, I wasn't ranting about Harvard. I was ranting about siemens. </p>
<p>I've been thinking about this. I talked with a of seniors, who are applying to 10+ prestigious schools, many just to see if they could have got in. </p>
<p>Today's high schooling has become so tough and competetive, even people who would like to go to small schools apply to big ones just to see if they "could have got in." Its like society is judging people by where they were accepted. AP used to be a program that you might take 1 or 2 courses and call it at that. But now, everyone(including myself) is suddenly becoming AP National Scholar's after Junior year. </p>
<p>It just seems that even though it is tough to get into Harvard, it is not that difficult to actually school there. Whereas MIT and Caltech seem more about "you come here, and we'll work your ass of." And I like it. That is what is going to make me a good engineer/scientist/mover-shaker. Not jumping around because "I got into MIT." </p>
<p>I'm going to take my dad's word on this(76'[I think, w/e it was long time ago, like ancient] Batch IIT?): "Don't worry about college. Brilliant, dedicated people will shine wherever they go. Period."</p>
<p>What your Dad said was perfectly right..
And yeah I feel the thing you write about too.
I mean US was a country where people were not recognised by the college they went to but their performance and capabilities (in many ways it still is that way) but with passage of time and as population there also increases it is becoming like India.</p>
<p>India as in: If in India you go to IIT you'll be offered handsome jobs even if you have miserable GPA (like 5/10) and if you go to someplace like Manipal and have a gpa of say (8/10) they'll still think twice before offering you a job.. I mean this is totally wrong.</p>
<p>As an aside, and as a technical and research professional in a large US technology company who has had the opportunity to hire in the past, I will take issue with your claims, vampiro. I do not see the situation in the US in general to be "becoming like India" as you assert. I have never offered positions to someone solely on the basis of the college they attended, and I have not rejected skilled and driven applicants who graduated from "lesser" colleges or universities. While I am a fan of MIT and have a son attending now, it is still true that there are many paths to success, and it all depends on what you do with your abilities and passions. And good luck to all of you!</p>
<p>I must agree wholeheartedly with mootmom. At least in most technology departments, the school definitely does not determine a hiring decision. The role of a CV/Resume in applying for a job is totally different to its role in applying for university. In applying for university, the application contains ALMOST everything that the school needs to make a decision (though the interview is certainly helpful, it is rarely the thing that gets you in).</p>
<p>Whereas in applying for a job, the role of the resume is to get you the interview, and it is at the interview that you get or lose the job. Will a prestigious university help you to get an interview? Yes probably. Will it's cachet give you a job? Only at firms you don't want to work for anyway.</p>
<p>I prospered at MIT. I know many people who have taken other paths, and are extremely happy and successful. If the only reason to attend MIT is as a "prize", a trophy school, then you are unlikely to get in, and unlikely to be happy if you do somehow get in.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I mean US was a country where people were not recognised by the college they went to but their performance and capabilities (in many ways it still is that way) but with passage of time and as population there also increases it is becoming like India.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh really? Let's not over-romanticize US history, shall we? Back in the supposedly 'good' old days, US wealth and privilege was highly concentrated amongst a network of elite families of the NorthEast, who were all invariably WASP's (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants) with family names like Lowell, Cabot, Lodge, Forbes, Adams, Winthrop, Peabody, Putnam, and the like who could trace their lineage back to colonial days. If you weren't born into that kind of class, it was hard for you to make it big. In particular, if you were, say, Irish, you had serious problems in getting ahead. Plenty of stores refused to hire and serve the Irish, and signs reading "Irish need not apply", and "No dogs, no Irish" could be seen in many a store window. The same was true if you were Jewish or Italian. The same was true if you were a woman. Women didn't even get the right to vote nationwide until 1920. And woe betide you if you weren't even white at all, but rather you were Asian or Latino or African-American. Perhaps you guys ought to tell some African-Americans about how great the US was back in the 'good old days' of slavery and Jim Crow. </p>
<p>Look, the US, for all its faults right now, is a LOT more meritocratic than it was in the past. A LOT more. Things aren't perfect now, but hey man, it's a lot better than it was in the past where blatant ethnic and gender discrimination were daily facts of life. Put another way, a child of a racial minority, born in poverty, is more likely to eventually go to Harvard these days than an equivalent child born 200 years ago. The chances are low in both cases, but in the latter case, the chances were REALLY low.</p>
<p>I am disappointed (or impressed) dear sakky, that your spirited defense of socially exclusive clubs and other such nonsense has died away so quickly.</p>
<p>Way to put words in my mouth. Did I ever say that I liked clubs that were socially exclusive? Please point to the quote where I specifically said that.</p>
<p>I was simply relating a story where I was highly impressed at how a black man in the 1940's was able to gain an invitation into one of the most socially-exclusive clubs in the world, and how it means that just because a person chooses to pursue social acceptance, that doesn't mean there's something wrong with the person. For some people, climbing the social ladder is more important than climbing the intellectual ladder. Hence, I don't think it's proper to condemn all social success as mere nonsense.</p>
<p>So some people choose to go to Harvard to pursue social prestige and social success. So what? Does that automatically make them bad people? </p>
<p>Look, I'll put it to the group this way. I see that there are a lot of Indians here, talking about IIT. While I and everybody else surely respect the IIT's as great schools, it seems to me that a lot of the elite in India would rather send their children to Ox-bridge than to IIT. Don't believe me? Ok fine, then think about this. Name me a single Prime Minister of India who went to IIT. Can't do it, can you? Ok, then how about some who went to Ox-bridge? I believe Indira Gandhi went to Oxford, her son, Rajiv Gandhi went to Cambridge, and the current PM, Manmohan Singh, went to Oxford. </p>
<p>Now again, that doesn't mean that IIT hasn't produced a long slew of impressive graduates. However, I'm just remarking at the long shadow that Ox-Bridge casts on the ranks of the social and political elite in India.</p>
<p>Ok Sakky. Give me a list of US Presidents who went to MIT. That is an extremely weak argument you have presented. If you have gone to India, you would know more about what more about what parents want. I can assure you that the vast majority of parents would rather have their kids go to IIT. </p>
<p>Being the political and social elite of India is not something everybody wants. There is a lot of violence and corruption in the government, and often times, public services(like pm) is putting your life at risk.</p>
<p>People in India respect IIT because it is notoriously hard work(as my dad tells me), just like you would expect at MIT or Caltech. The kids in there are very smart. Nobody cares about URM, etc. Every math and science student(not med kids though) look to IIT as the final goal.</p>
<p>Just a reminder, from the words of the wise Ben Jones in the "Whoever has the most APs wins" thread here, regarding those who are happiest and most successful at MIT, and the folly of looking to MIT in particular as "the final goal":
[quote]
They don't look at MIT as the prize; they look at MIT as the logical next step. It's an important distinction. . . .<a href="Since%20this%20%5Bb%5Dis%5B/b%5D%20the%20MIT%20board,%20after%20all...">/quote</a></p>
<p>sakky: I said socially exclusive clubs and pecking orders are bad ("nonsense") and that I look down on schools that have them. You said that there was no need to use such words; some people value social ladders, and use them to do admirable things for themselves and the world.</p>
<p>My point in my message (#19) about prizefighting is: just the fact that some people value X, and use X to do admirable things for themselves and the world, does not make X good. It is possible that everyone individually would be better off if X did not exist; (eliminating X would be a Pareto improvement).</p>
<p>Thus, your Levi Jackson arugment, which purports to show that I am wrong to call things like social hierarchies "nonsense", shows nothing at all.</p>
<p>This is a very important point, too often neglected by people (like me) who honor highly developed intellectual ability. The millions of minds that make up the job market in a free enterprise society have figured out that sometimes good "people skills" trump good "technical skills" in actual economic usefulness, so I'm coming around to honoring the personable more than I used to.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Today's high schooling has become so tough and competetive, even people who would like to go to small schools apply to big ones just to see if they "could have got in." Its like society is judging people by where they were accepted. AP used to be a program that you might take 1 or 2 courses and call it at that. But now, everyone(including myself) is suddenly becoming AP National Scholar's after Junior year
[/quote]
Now, what exactly is wrong with that Sagar??? It's like saying someone's volunteer work over the course of high school isn't authentic because he/she just performed it to boost his/her college apps. As Machiavelli said, "The ends justify the means." You should receive credit for your hard work regardless of your motives. Society isn't judging people by where they were accepted; it is just setting higher standards for its individuals to attain the ideal state of recognition. Its people like you that make me happy that I'm not going to attend one of these narrow-minded tech colleges whose goals are just to provide tedious book education.</p>
<p>Hey genius, robots can solve math and physics equations!!! It takes a human being to have feelings and inspire social change like the man in sakky's example. Thats why a place like Harvard thrives and ends up on top of every US college ranking list constantly. Truly passionate people who seek to communicate with others and change the world around them go there. Harvard's list of notable alumis trumps MIT and Caltech's lists ten-fold COMBINED. I wholeheartedly agree with sakky!!! GO CRIMSON!!</p>
<p>BTW, cross-admit admission data shows that out of every 100 applicants accepted to MIT and Harvard, 90+ will choose Harvard.</p>
<p>well I can back Sagar up. (in fact in my personal case my parents want me to go to IIT even over HYPSM...if I get in i.e.)</p>
<p>But what my post meant (when ya all started this fiery discussion) was that its about principles.
Like I do not think that IIT's are in any way less than MIT/Caltech but I feel that their selection procedure is not good. I mean how can you judge a students whole high school life with one exam. See MIT/Caltech chose students in a way which is customised to every single student. Suppose if in a students application they see an inclination towards computer Science..they see lots of good activities/awards and devotion to that field and they see a reasonably good record in other subjects they will think him to be academically competitive. But in IIT's even if one wants to do Comp Engg. He will never get the chance to show his talent in Comp Sc. but has to give only the entrance test where it is possible he may get rejected. So thats the difference which sets in my eyes MIT and other US univs above our Indian Colleges.</p>
<p>evil<em>asian</em>dictator: Your post seems to say a lot about you. So you honor recognition over the actual love of learning? </p>
<p>Hey genius, robots cannot solve the math and physics equations that we are after. In fact, we haven't even been able to come up with full "math and physics" equations to model some phenomena.</p>
<p>I am certain that Harvard's noticeable alumni would not share your perspective on life. And who's to say they wouldn't have done what they did anywhere? Remember, "Brilliant, dedicated people will shine whereever they go in life. Period." </p>
<p>"Its people like you that make me happy that I'm not going to attend one of these narrow-minded tech colleges whose goals are just to provide tedious book education."</p>
<p>Have you even got into Stanford, MIT, Caltech?</p>
<p>"Its people like you that make me happy that I'm not going to attend one of these narrow-minded tech colleges whose goals are just to provide tedious book education."</p>
<p>hahaha. Boy those narrow tech colleges are responsible for 90% of the gadgetery you use to make your life simple.</p>
<p>evil<em>asian</em>dictator is apparently applying for RSI '06, and as such probably doesn't "hate" MIT as much as the troll-post above might lead you to believe.</p>
<p>... unless of course they do it at Caltech again this year (I think they won't). In that case, obviously he would seek to attend the much more worldly and non-science-focused institution ;-) <em>giggle</em></p>