<p>Cambridge pretty much is Boston. A 5-minute walk across the bridge will bring you to the heart of the city.</p>
<p>Haha, Mystic Merlin, how fast do you walk? :)</p>
<p>A 5 minute walk from MIT to the heart of Boston, eh? It takes about TEN minutes for the T to get from Kendall Square to Downtown Crossing, and that doesn't even include the time you spend sitting around waiting in Kendall for the T (generally another 5-10 minutes). </p>
<p>Furthermore, I wouldn't even say that the Downtown Crossing stop is near the true heart of the city. A stop like Government Center, State Street, or Aquarium/Financial District would probably be closer to the true heart of the city. But of course to get to those stops, you have to transfer lines, which is another 5-10 minutes.</p>
<p>Merlin flies!</p>
<p>As far as I see, MIT is too near Boston for it to be considered 'seperate', even if it isn't 'legally' inside the city. I'm quite certain MIT is closer to the heart of Boston than a lot of Boston's suburbs. ;) I'm a bit biased in my view though, seeing as the closest a big city is to me is New Orleans(?) which is about 3 hours away, or Atlanta, which is about 6.</p>
<p>Hey, let's not discount the closeness of Caltech to Los Angeles. It's pretty close - only about a 15 minute drive. Furthermore, let's keep in mind that at Caltech, unlike at MIT, it's actually semi-reasonable to have a car. I would submit that Los Angeles is MORE accessible to Caltech'ers with a car than Boston is to MIT'ers without a car. Heck, I would submit that Los Angeles is more accessible with Caltech'ers with a car than Boston is to those few MIT'ers that have cars, mostly because it's a whole lot harder to find parking in Boston than in Los Angeles.</p>
<p>don't be silly sakky- the disparity is obvious. If you're going to argue the distinction between ENTERING boston and finding DOWNTOWN boston (which the Park Street stop takes care of - 2 stops, I believe... max 3), then you'd have to do the same for LA. Factoring in the traffic in LA, I'm sure 15 min would far from take you downtown. The Caltech and MIT students both agree, what's there to argue?</p>
<p>Furthermore, non-seniors at Caltech rarely visit Los Angeles for any length of time (unless they live in the area), whereas virtually everyone I know at MIT, freshmen through senior, regularly spends their free time in Boston.</p>
<p>I think there is a lot to argue simply because I am demonstrating that Caltech is not as 'remote' from a major city as seems to be implied in this thread. Whether Caltech'ers actually choose to go to LA is not the issue, the issue is that LA is right there. If you want it, it's there.</p>
<p>And no, I do not consider Park Street to be downtown Boston.</p>
<p>pebbles is right -- everyone who is currently attending one school or the other agrees that MIT is, for all practical purposes (i.e. how it actually affects people's lives) more a part of Boston than Pasadena is a part of "the city of LA". That's kind of a completely value-free perception that everyone seems to have settled on. Obviously it is a plus from the point of view of some people, and a plus for MIT from the point of view of some other people.</p>
<p>By the way, I can't imagine two cities more different than Boston and LA, so the point about who is closer to where is a bit moot. While downtown Boston holds most of the area's nightlife and attractions, Old Town Pasadena, the Santa Monica Third Street Promenade, and some parts of Hollywood are probably the three best spots to go in the LA area if you want to have a good time (downtown is mainly a business district). LA is culturally and geographically very different from Boston -- which city you enjoy will be a matter of taste.</p>
<p>But when you visit, it's not a bad idea to ask some students to take you to a place they go to hang out off campus (despite silly rules which discourage this) so you can get a feel for what the area is like.</p>
<p>While we're on the subject of cities - correct me if I'm wrong, but Cambridge is much, much more urban (and uglier) than Pasadena? At least, it doesn't have palm trees.</p>
<p>What silly rules do you refer to?</p>
<p>Most people say Pasadena is very pretty, and we do have a lot of palm trees and very well tended lawns and mountains in the distance and such.</p>
<p>The MIT side of Cambridge is more industrial, but a short bus ride away one has the somewhat more picturesque Harvard Square. It always felt unfair to me that MIT got screwed out of the better real estate, in some respects. On the other hand, many MIT dorms face directly out onto the Charles, which is kind of cool.</p>
<p>In the past, admissions has "discouraged" students from taking prefrosh off campus, but that's kind of silly from my point of view -- the prefrosh I've talked to said that seeing the area really drew them to Caltech. I see no purpose in hiding a very strong selling point. Last year, admissions had students take prefrosh on tours of the nearby area, but I think a less formal night out with your host is a better idea. So basically, if you get in and come to prefrosh, ask to see Old Pas and the like -- you won't regret it.</p>
<p>: )</p>
<p>On the flip side, my California son doesn't care for LA at all, so in terms of a nearby city, Boston won without a second thought. And y'know, call me weird, but I think MIT and its surrounding area has a real charm. It's not like Pasadena for sure, but I don't think it's ugly. It's just, as you say, more on the industrial side of things.</p>
<p>Well. I was about to post exactly what you just said, mootmom, but I didn't. You did it for me.</p>
<p>Lemme fix it:</p>
<p>On the flip side, I, a california kid, don't care for LA at all, so in terms of a nearby city, Boston won without a second thought. And y'know, call me weird, but I think MIT and its surrounding area has a real charm. It's not like Pasadena for sure, but I don't think it's ugly. It's just, as you say, more on the industrial side of things.</p>
<p>I live in Airzona, and the last place I would want to go is where it's sunny all the time. So, this is one of the reasons why I would personally prefer MIT.</p>
<p>It's funny how there's a bit of crossover, hehe. Northeasterners like me see a certain, um, appeal in Socal, whereas there are a few paradise-dwellers who apparently think a blizzard is the best thing since sliced bread.</p>
<p>I rather like the change of seasons. :)</p>
<p>signed,
Northeasterner.</p>
<p>I hope everyone gets to experience both, as I have (having spent 12+ years @boston/cambridge) and now @ pasadena. Personally, I didn't get to see much of boston when an UG; in grad school and after, I finally got to explore the city.
I'd encourage MIT kids to apply for a SURF at caltech for a summer, and vice versa.
(I know a caltech student can do a SURF at MIT, but does MIT offer something similar?)</p>
<p>MIT, because you can cross reg with Harvard (and talk to all of us on the Harvard forum!) and walk around with froofy hair and spout nonsense about classical philosophy. And wear suspenders. <---My goal in life.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The MIT side of Cambridge is more industrial, but a short bus ride away one has the somewhat more picturesque Harvard Square. It always felt unfair to me that MIT got screwed out of the better real estate, in some respects.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I would say that a lot of it is MIT's own fault. Schools have some power to affect the beauty or ugliness of their surroundings. However, MIT almost seems to "like" having an ugly campus. For those who don't know what I'm talking about, why not take a walk around the East side of campus near the medical center where you'll see all these ghetto-ish buildings with broken windows that haven't been replaced in years. The way I see it is, if MIT doesn't put an effort into making its own campus beautiful, you can't really expect the surrounding neighborhood to make itself beautiful. </p>
<p>Also I would point out that Cambridge used to be a thriving industrial city and because MIT was founded as a trade school, it was entirely logical to relocate MIT (in 1916) to near all the manufacturing plants and warehouses. Now, much of that manufacturing capacity is sitting as empty shells of building, much as a lot of the older Eastern manufacturing sites around the country are.</p>