<p>Just wondering since it has renown engineering program, I know their economic program is strong as well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. Definately not.
Willy27 asked [here</a>](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/massachusetts-institute-technology/882019-statistics-mit-2014-admissions-cycle-post1065285039.html#post1065285039]here”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/massachusetts-institute-technology/882019-statistics-mit-2014-admissions-cycle-post1065285039.html#post1065285039) that :</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And MITChris flatly said [here](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/massachusetts-institute-technology/882019-statistics-mit-2014-admissions-cycle-post1065288749.html#post1065288749]here[/url]:”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/massachusetts-institute-technology/882019-statistics-mit-2014-admissions-cycle-post1065288749.html#post1065288749):</a>
</p>
<p>No, what you plan to major in doesn’t really matter much. They just want insight into what you enjoy.</p>
<p>and honestly, if you intend to apply to liberal arts major, MIT is not really for you.</p>
<p>Even though some might switch to libart after being accepted, they were probably tech oriented but changed their minds. Afterall, MIT is an institute of TECH. </p>
<p>harvard, princeton, yale might be better</p>
<p>thanks for the clarification</p>
<p>^ There are pros and cons to being a liberal arts major at MIT. I’m not convinced that the con list is much longer, as our HASSes are pretty awesone :)</p>
<p>No, what you plan to major in doesn’t really matter much. They just want insight into what you enjoy.</p>
<p>I’m wondering about this, and whether it’s a complete statement. Yes, I imagine they do not make decisions based on what you say you want to major in - why? People change their majors. </p>
<p>However, I’d think it obvious that showing one’s match for a school in a less common way (given a science/tech focused school) makes for a better chance. This does, of course, entail the catch that just slapping on humanities classes because you figure it’ll look good.</p>
<p>@resilient193 - </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is not so. We have lots of students who come in for liberal arts and stay in liberal arts. Our DevEcon, CMS, Poli Sci, and Literature programs are world class. </p>
<p>True, to come to MIT you must also demonstrate a love of science and math that is not necessarily a precondition for the liberal arts at HYP, but in no way shape or form is MIT not a place for liberal arts folk.</p>
<p>Does MIT consider non-math/science ECs? What about “new media” type EC? Would you include a dvd of a performance or a review (either physical or a link) in the application? THanks.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am curious why someone interested in liberal arts must demonstrate a love for science and math, and also what “love” entails. As in, how does this fit with the overall master-plan to match students to the school?</p>
<p>I don’t think you’d have to <em>love</em> math or science to pass the general education requirements, so there probably is more to it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That sounds appropriate to include in an application. MIT will definitely look at non-math/science ECs. (See also: all of my ECs. Well, except flying.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Given how hard the GIRs are (and they are truly difficult if you don’t have the background), you have to love science enough to get through them. If you detest science, you’ll probably be unhappy your first year at MIT, given that you’ll be taking 75% science classes :P</p>
<p>The Match seems to partially include an understanding and appreciation of science, even if this is not your major or career.</p>
<p>I see, and what is the underlying philosophy behind making the match entail appreciation of science enough to pass these requirements? That is, what should a student interested in majoring in the liberal arts take away from his/her education (which includes those science classes)?</p>
<p>mathboy: Although there is certainly room for liberal arts majors at MIT, in some ways the “point” of MIT is math/science. The inscription in Lobby 7 reads, “Established for Advancement and Development of Science its Application to Industry the Arts Agriculture and Commerce.” In other words, yes, can come here to study political science (and many do, because the program is well-respected) but you’re going to do it from a more mathematical or scientific perspective. In fact, you might even say that MIT is all about applying science anywhere it can help, including in fields that aren’t considered very math-y. Well-roundedness is a big theme at MIT. MIT graduates take more humanities classes than LAC grads take science classes. If you don’t see the value of science and math, or at least the value of analytical thinking as it applies to most spheres of thought, you’re probably not going to like MIT and would be better off going to a more traditional liberal arts college.</p>
<p>At MIT, science is more of an attitude than a course requirement. =)</p>
<p>*or at least the value of analytical thinking as it applies to most spheres of thought, you’re probably not going to like MIT and would be better off going to a more traditional liberal arts college.</p>
<p>At MIT, science is more of an attitude than a course requirement.*</p>
<p>yes, can come here to study political science (and many do, because the program is well-respected) but you’re going to do it from a more mathematical or scientific perspective</p>
<p>Kind of you to indulge my curiosity - might I ask what this “more mathematical or scientific perspective” involves? Like learning about how political policy interacts with and influences endeavors in science, etc?</p>
<p>I ask these questions because it’s a little tough for me to grasp the full motivation as an outsider. I would understand a pure math/science/engineering school with a few humanities classes that expose people to good materials rich in communication. That’s there in most schools with an engineering program.</p>
<p>I’m sure there is quite a bit to this “science is an attitude” idea, and I was wondering what it actually means.</p>
<p>I started writing a response here yesterday but then I erased it because I thought this thread was going to disappear, but seeing how people are inclined to discuss this…</p>
<p>For me, I started “seeing” my liberal arts side more and more actually as I was going through MIT. Right now, I am only three classes away from finishing my BS in Biology at MIT, but I went and declared a double major last year in History. I’ve gotten a lot of crap for being a history major at MIT (“especially how MIT has such good math and science classes! - you should take them in your final year instead!”) but I actually realized that being at a such scientifically-focused school has made me shift my priorities over the last 3 years.</p>
<p>I used to be a big math and science student in high school - I authored a paper on geometry that was submitted to fairs and contests and I did AMC hardcore for three years. I thought MIT was going to be the perfect match in terms of my interests so I applied to MIT as a course 10 major (chem engineering). Very quickly after getting here, however, I realized that actually there’s no way I’m going to keep doing an engineering major (any kind of programming = ugh, even though I have basic proficiency in Java and Python still - but I simply don’t enjoy it). I started volunteering a lot in hospitals and esp working with immigrants solidified my plan of being premed. I switched over to Bio as soon as I declared an actual major and has stuck with it.</p>
<p>Over the last two years, however, I also realized that Bio isn’t as “fun” as I anticipate it to be - maybe I simply just have too many interests and I can’t be content studying something in great detail, but I started to find myself more and more drawn towards the HASS (humanities) classes that MIT offers. Over the last 3 years, I’ve taken classes from Economics to Political Science to Art History to Foreign Language (Spanish and Japanese!) and now History. I originally wanted to go to college and do a History degree, but it didn’t seem to be a very “practical” major at that time, so I did a Bio major first - now it seems like I’m fulfilling what I originally wanted to do anyway in a roundabout manner.</p>
<p>But the point of this story is that through this all, the rigor of the MIT science curriculum really challenged my scientific thinking and examined why I wanted to be a scientist (in my case, “why not” more than “why”). I know I am going to graduate from here certain that I am not going to pursue academic research, despite the fact that probably several dozen of my friends will go down that path. However, at the same time, I’ve also learned to look at humanities fields through a critical, analytical, and dare I say, scientific slant. We use partial derivatives in our intro econ classes while other intro econ classes at other esteemed colleges in the US have students writing essays. In my history pre-thesis seminar, one student submitted a paper that utilized statistics and numerical methods and contained 15 figures and graphs as his final paper (which was supposed to be a “history paper”). In my Art History class, students explained the subtle shades of lighting on a painting by going in depth into the chemical properties of the pigments used and the physical effects of light scattering at dusk.</p>
<p>Science pervades everywhere at MIT, even into the humanities fields, and I think this is one reason why you really still have to at least have a “fondness” of science to come here and actually like it here even as a pure humanities major. Above all else, if I can summarize the theme that pervades MIT instruction across all majors is that of analysis. MIT teaching is very interested in the question of “why” (and its sister, “why not”), and this kind of teaching goes across all majors, even into the “humanities” majors - most certainly polisci and econ (which I personally don’t consider to be true humanities in the way that MIT teaches them - they are really social science, the “SS” of HASS), but also literature and history. Through my history majors and comparing notes with a guy I know that majors in history at Harvard, I’ve come to see that our professors are more interested in getting us to push our arguments logically very far while Harvard’s instruction appears to be more focused on developing the paper’s “presentability” and prose (i.e. it should flow well, sound educated, and have an extensive bibliography). </p>
<p>I’ve rambled on for too long and this is starting to get off the point (or it never really addressed the point in the first place), but these are basically my thoughts on going through a humanities major at MIT and having over 180 credits in the HASS department up to this point.</p>
<p>PS. Side point - there’s also a handful of students that are sole humanities majors at MIT (again, discounting 14, 17, and CMS - these three are very science-y in the way that they are taught!) - they used to be regarded as students that can’t handle the rigors of a real science curriculum and thus shifted over to the humanities in their effort to graduate on time, but even according to my professors this is simply not true anymore and is a very prejudiced conclusion. There are students that actually developed an interest for a humanities field and decided to pursue a full sole major here (especially if they want to study intensively under a certain humanities professor, which MIT has many esteemed ones). Thus, it is incorrect to immediately jump to the conclusion that if a student is a sole humanities major at MIT it’s because he couldn’t handle the engineering or science classes - just throwing that out there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s an overall slant in teaching that focuses heavily on analysis rather than just presentation and memorization. Like the examples I gave above, even humanities professors at MIT are more interested in the thought process and basically the “Scientific Method” of reasoning rather than just a polished paper. </p>
<p>I think this is partly a self-perpetuating cycle, seeing how many of the students are so engineering and science focused that they bring a lot of the experiences they have from their science fields into their humanities classes (like writing an art history essay the same way as one would approach the “Conclusions” part of a lab report). With these professors reading essays like this through the years, they also start becoming more interested in the thought process (and expecting this in the essay) rather than just a lot of fluff.</p>
<p>Mainly because of this, I think the humanities classes are very different at MIT in emphasis than those that you would find at Harvard (I only have anecdotal evidence at this point, but I plan to cross-reg and see for myself next year for realz).</p>
<p>Over the last two years, however, I also realized that Bio isn’t as “fun” as I anticipate it to be - maybe I simply just have too many interests and I can’t be content studying something in great detail, but I started to find myself more and more drawn towards the HASS (humanities) classes that MIT offers.</p>
<p>Funny, I started getting interested in math after hating studying many other things <em>in detail</em> even if I like almost every discipline overall … it was certainly not because I loved the subject from the start.</p>
<p>*It’s an overall slant in teaching that focuses heavily on analysis rather than just presentation and memorization. *</p>
<p>Sounds good, I would imagine people who are interested in this style of writing gravitate towards philosophy in most places, because it is most directly involved in clarifying things like language use and the associated potential meanings with a pretty analytical approach. </p>
<p>It’s probably much better to be able to take such a slant towards any “HASS” … too tired to write any more cohesive response here to all the good info :)</p>
<p>MITChris - “This is not so. We have lots of students who come in for liberal arts and stay in liberal arts. Our DevEcon, CMS, Poli Sci, and Literature programs are world class.”</p>
<p>I keep hearing this, and I don’t doubt it, I suppose, but what exactly do you mean when you say “world class”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A few things: 1) the professors we have are well renowned, 2) MIT is doing cutting-edge research in the field, or 3) the program focus is very innovative and special at MIT.</p>
<p>I can speak about Development Econ (being in iHouse) and Literature (somewhat, from hearsay from my HASS friends). The former is more 1) and 2), and the latter is more 3). People always say we have one of the strongest undergrad polisci depts but even now I’m still not quite sure what we’re so famous for…</p>
<p>MIT is honestly a leader in academia on International Development and its Economics/Policy.</p>
<p>The one development class that’s always mentioned (and is very famous amongst MIT undergrads) is [About</a> D-Lab | D-Lab](<a href=“http://d-lab.mit.edu/about]About”>ABOUT | MIT D-Lab), taught by Prof. Amy Smith, which was one of Time’s 100 Most Influential People in the world last year. MIT’s Poverty Action Lab works on evaluating development policy and is under the umbrella of the MIT Econ Dept: [About</a> J-PAL | The Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab](<a href=“http://www.povertyactionlab.org/about-j-pal]About”>About Us). 14.73 and 14.74 are also well-known (Challenge of World Poverty and Foundations of Development Policy). 14.73 and 14.74 is taught by two founders of the Poverty Action Lab, Prof. Banerjee and Prof. Duflo.</p>
<p>They make the news a lot - here’s a recent article that just appeared in Business Week that I found after 3 seconds of Googling: [The</a> Pragmatic Rebels - BusinessWeek](<a href=“Bloomberg - Are you a robot?”>Bloomberg - Are you a robot?).</p>
<p>Literature, Music, and CMS are probably the three majors in HASS that MIT invests the most resources into, and the Lit department has an array of professors from all kinds of specialties. The curriculum I heard is pretty innovative [LIT@MIT:</a> About Our Program](<a href=“http://lit.mit.edu/program/index.php]LIT@MIT:”>http://lit.mit.edu/program/index.php) and meets or exceeds that of HYPS and that of well-respected LACs. I think most students just really enjoy the way the classes are conducted though. Most lit classes have no more than 10 students (this is not an anomaly! - the smallest History class I was in this semester had only 3 students - at MIT if you get away from the science and engineering classes you can actually have extremely tiny classes), and is very geared towards discussion. I don’t really know anyone on the Lit faculty that’s “famous” famous off the top of my head, but I just know the students enjoy the classes a lot - I have yet to take a Lit class though so I don’t have any personal experience.</p>
<p>Your intended major won’t determine your admission because you have the option to change your major once you get into MIT</p>