<p>I too think that FB has misinterpreted Cami's post. Cami's statement referred to the institution's particular self-image (as did the OP's quote from the MIT dean), not the caliber of the students. Some people like a "core curriculum" based on "the Great Books," etc., and some don't. Schools that follow this creed--such as Chicago, Columbia, and most especially, St. John's probably do see themselves as preserving traditional "scholarship and deep thinking." Which is OK. You don't have to agree, and you don't have to go there. The operative phrase in Cami's supposedly offensive statement was "portraying itself," as in "projecting an image." But neither Chicago or Cami in any way imply that there aren't plenty of scholars in plenty of other places. They probably think their way is best, just as Brown (at the other end of the curricular spectrum) presumably thinks their way is best. Everyone has their own notion of "the ideal."</p>
<p>BTW, Cami--I think Chicago is a pretty world-changing place. They may not invent as much stuff as MIT, but they've turned out some beautifully educated minds.</p>
<p>Disclaimer: I have absolutely no connection with any of the schools mentioned in this thread.</p>
<p>"So much for my thread and the theme of idealism "</p>
<p>The point is that you can find "idealistic" students at most universities and colleges who are convinced that they will impact the world. And they do. These idealistic students are not only in attendence at certain schools, despite what the school's administration puts out in a press release.</p>
<p>
[quote]
These idealistic students are not only in attendence at certain schools, despite what the school's administration puts out in a press release.
[/quote]
This is certainly true, but like it or not, certain schools have a footprint that dwarfs the others. MIT is one such place. Harvard and Yale are two others. I'm not sure what the context was for the MIT woman's statement....if she goes around talking like that at dinner parties, it would get annoying after a while. Still, there's nothing wrong with a little institutional grandiosity, IMO...think of it as a form of school spirit. It's not bragging if you can do it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm not sure what the context was for the MIT woman's statement....
[/quote]
Context: Marilee Jones, Dean of Admissions at MIT, made those comments to her Admissions team as they went into the final selection process for the Early Action applicants to MIT this year (as reported by Ben Jones of her staff). No press releases, no intent to impress anyone, rather an attempt to inspire and bring the Admissions staff into a particular frame of mind as they consider the applications before them.</p>
<p>This obsession with inclusiveness does get tiresome. Nothing is good anymore unless every possible thing is good. Groups of people are tired of hearing about how good someone elses child is: it could be offensive; how good someone elses school is; how good someone elses culture is; religion; atheism; liberalism; conservatism; MIT is only good if Duke is just as good, as Berkeley is good, as Brown is good, as Podunk U is good </p>
<p>As I see it, there's just no reason for anyone to be offended by an institution's self-image. It doesn't mean they think they're better than you. It makes total sense to me that the MIT admissions director would make such a statement, given the track record of MIT graduates. Hey, one of their students might come up with a cure for AIDS (that rationale was actually used by the president of Swarthmore, in dropping their football team.) If I were the dean of admissions at Harvard Law, it might cross my mind to mention that--what is it now, if you include Alito--5 or 6 current members of the Supreme Court had admissions packets discussed in this office. I happen to like Chicago's approach to higher ed, and I think they are defending traditional scholarship (you don't have to agree...it's OK.) But that doesn't mean that anyone thinks less of you for going to a different school.</p>
<p>You must be talking about someone else's post! What's wrong in taking joy in a school that unabashedly embraces scholarship, the joys of philosophy and the kind of college experience that emphasizes the role of reason.</p>
<p>I was not discussing rankings or people's pocketbooks. This discussion has absolutely nothing to do with whether a school is ranked high or low on U.S. News and World Report. You are the one suggesting that a school must have a certain ranking in order to qualify as an insitutition that has a real sense of what it is. That's not what I said.</p>
<p>I have been associated with many schools in my lifetime as undergrad, grad student, and professor. There are two schools that made my heart sing. One is a black school that I am quite sure most people on the boards have never heard of. The other was a small midwestern LAC, the kind that CC students normally overlook. </p>
<p>While neither school was a common household word, they both knew who they were and communicated that aptly to their students. Like Chicago, each had a mission and made sure that their students knew what that mission was. I taught at Paine College in the late 70s. Paine was located in Augusta, Georgia. The students came from extremely poor backgrounds, mostly rural. Some of the kids were raised in small wooden shacks with dirt floors. A lot of them had lived through the civil rights movement of the 60s and had some hair raising stories to tell. Most of those students were the first in their families to finish middle or high school, let alone go on to college. Paine did a great job of communicating to those students why they were there and what their potential might be.</p>
<p>My other "school with a mission" was little Kalamazoo College in the late 60s. At a time when few schools had study abroad programs, internships, or similar programs, Kalamazoo was a groundbreaker. Moreover, they were (and still are) churning out liberal arts students who go on to doctoral programs in amazing numbers.</p>
<p>The basic point is this. Any school can have a sense of mission and convey that to its students and faculty. It would be wrong to overlook schools like Paine and Kalamazoo which generally operate out of the limelight, but it's equally wrong to ignore a gem like Chicago merely because it doesn't fit your personal preconceptions. Gems come in all sizes and types. It has little to do with money or rank.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If I were the dean of admissions at Harvard Law, it might cross my mind to mention that--what is it now, if you include Alito--5 or 6 current members of the Supreme Court had admissions packets discussed in this office.<<</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Six of the current members of the US Supreme court attended Harvard Law School, but even if confirmed they will not include Alito. He went to Yale Law School.</p>
<p>"It really doesn't matter who we admit; The applicant pool is so strong that the rejected students as a group are indistinguishable from the accepted students. So get in there and start fipping coins!"</p>
<p>I don't know about changing civilization but MIT is certainly a very special place and if I had to make the decision over again, I would have gone there 25 years ago if I could. What you make of yourself after college is all upto you - but MIT does foster an atmosphere where you are taught to think creatively, expansively. An atmosphere of problem-solving is also fostered. It leads to big leaps in a person's growth.</p>
<p>It is interesting how some schools generate such passions, positive and negative, while some similar schools just cruise under the radar. Contrast the passions (both ways ) about Chicago, then compare to Hopkins. </p>
<p>I would guess that you could get very similar advice or information from the Dean of Admissions at any top 25 school. I don't think the MIT quote is really that unique or idealistic.</p>
<p>This is from another Admisssions Dean at a top 25 University. </p>
<p>XXXXX enrolls multi-faceted, multi-talented students. Every year we are fortunate enough to receive applications from thousands of the most accomplished students in the world. But we're most interested in those students who will challenge us, make original discoveries, use their leadership skills in new venues, and take advantage of the depth as well as the breadth of this university's offerings.
Our undergraduates are among the most engaged, brilliant, passionate, and funny students in the world.
That's what XXXXX is, and that's what we see in our students. We want you to make real discoveries, serious contributionseven change the world. </p>
<p>I wonder if it is better to change the world or civilization? :)</p>
<p>Ok, nevermind. The claim to change the world is not limited to top 25 schools. Just for kicks I googled "colleges where students will change the world." </p>
<p>The very first thing that came up in the search was a community college in California. It make sthe claim: "We'll change your life. You'll change the world."</p>
<p>Maybe Woodwork was right. It is all a matter of perspective I guess.</p>
<p>Perhaps, but there's an intuitive distinction between true hyperbole, and when the graduates do actually come close to fulfilling such a prophecy, which in turn nurtures the incoming classes.</p>