<p>I promised a more substantive response, but I am afraid I will not live up to that self-imposed demand. Ben, your posts make sense, and to engage in a protracted battle over nuances is clearly otiose. So, in other words, I agree with what you are generally arguing, but disagree with a few details.</p>
<p>Regarding ethics, I abhor Singer. Call me a Nozickan or Korsgaardian anyday over a Singer.</p>
<p>Pleasure chatting with you, nspeds : )</p>
<p>mollie -- that makes me happy. Good to hear you're in the neighborhood.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Oh, and pebbles. Your remarks about "reek of arrogance" ring a little hollow in view of the generally snarky and smug tenor of your own posts.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh well, then ring hollow it must, my noble friend. I've done all I needed/set out to do, which was to stand up briefly for a department and school I love- and you gotta do that ONCE every ten times it is attacked- and since I won't be NEARLY so inclined to gently cradle MIT in my lap and shield it from the daggers of BIG BAD CALTECH MAN during the spring term while the institute is swallowing me whole, figure I'd do it now. But yeah, I frankly can't think of anything duller than pursuing a never-ending argument over the thousandth digit. So I call it quits. I avoided debate team for a reason. </p>
<p>Good tidings to you on this brand new year. It's doing the whole 'oh yeah we're New England' thing outside again and decided to snow. So we lit a fire and it was nice. By the way egg-nog is abysmal. Who can stand that stuff?</p>
<p>I took 24.02 (ethics, bascially) this past semester and was not very pleased. I did learn a lot, but I don't feel that the ideas were presented very well. </p>
<p>We never really defined ethics. As the course progressed, I eventually figured out what definition we were supposed to be using. In 24.02, ethics was the study of secular theories of right and wrong that best align with our "moral intution." Now, I completely disagree with that definition of ethics, but we weren't given any opportunity to discuss it. Also, I think the "secular" qualification was ridiculous. We weren't even allowed to talk about religion in the class, and that, in my opinion, was absurd. To study philosophy without studying religion is to study calculus without using trig. You could do it, but you'd have a gaping hole in your understanding of the subject. </p>
<p>I just thought the course was very narrow in both it's scope and it's grading. I didn't do poorly, but the comments on my papers really just seemed like the opinions of my TA.</p>
<p>If you expect a particularly respectful treatment of religion, you are likely to be extremely disappointed in most courses dealing with Western philosophy. However, it is a little odd to have a course about ethics without mentioning the numerous theories that are, in some respects, motivated or influenced by religion. (Although note that even deeply religious thinkers have said that ethics needs a "secular" footing: if we define "right" or "good" to mean just "what God approves of", then God's moral dictates aren't independently virtuous. Plus, what would "God is good" even mean? That God approves of Himself?)</p>
<p>so what i got out of that debate was that Caltech has stronger introductory philosophy courses while MIT has a stronger upper-level philosophy program. is that agreeable to both sides?</p>
<p>which, if thats the case, means im still leaning towards MIT :/</p>
<p>
[quote]
Plus, what would "God is good" even mean? That God approves of Himself?
[/quote]
that made me smile btw :)</p>
<p>Yes. While I think the closer student-faculty contact, especially at the introductory levels, is something that Caltech has the edge on, MIT does certainly have more offerings at the upper levels of philosophy. So if a major or minor in philosophy is a serious possibility for you, then choosing MIT would probably be wise. But do, if you have the chance, visit both schools and see how you feel at both. Seeing how well you fit with the place is a very important part of the choice. And then do what's right for you. Good luck.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I eventually figured out what definition we were supposed to be using. In 24.02, ethics was the study of secular theories of right and wrong that best align with our "moral intution."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There is no one-line definition to ethics, especially when some books are solely dedicated to defining it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
To study philosophy without studying religion is to study calculus without using trig.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Then you should be looking for a course that covers the likes of Aquinas. From Kant onward, ethical theories will have nothing to do with God, so you are not missing much from the 'secular instruction.' Additionally, 'religion' is not that important to philosophy, especially of the analytic sort. If you are looking for discussions on such, I recommend taking a course on the philosophy of religion.</p>
<p>
[quote]
so what i got out of that debate was that Caltech has stronger introductory philosophy courses while MIT has a stronger upper-level philosophy program. is that agreeable to both sides?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not only should one regard the upper-level course offerings, but the resources that I listed in my previous posts on this thread adumbrate the strength of the department.</p>
<p>
[quote]
my previous posts on this thread adumbrate the strength of the department
[/quote]
...in addition to offering a paradigmatic adumbration of the recondite grandiloquence that recrementitious rehearsal for the GRE (substitute appropriate equivalent) can yield.</p>
<p>Now (perhaps) you may have to go look up some words in return for what that post did to everyone -- but I am not counting on it ;-)</p>
<p>paradigmatic-Of or relating to the set of substitutional or oppositional relationships a linguistic unit has with other units
adumbration-To give a sketchy outline of
recondite-Not easily understood
grandiloquence-Pompous or bombastic speech or expression
recrementitious-Of or pertaining to recrement (waste matter)
rehearsal-The act of practicing in preparation for a public performance
GRE-test of pain</p>
<p>Well I knew more than half of those offhand so do I get my cupcake now?</p>
<p>
[quote]
...in addition to offering a paradigmatic adumbration of the recondite grandiloquence that recrementitious rehearsal for the GRE (substitute appropriate equivalent) can yield.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Eh, I have read better.</p>
<p>
[quote]
GRE-test of pain
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The GRE is not that much more difficult than the SAT. If you are graduating from a school like MIT, you should have no problem at excelling.</p>
<p>
[quote]
...in addition to offering a paradigmatic adumbration of the recondite grandiloquence that recrementitious rehearsal for the GRE (substitute appropriate equivalent) can yield.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That was uncalled for, especially since the only difficult word was 'adumbrate.' Additionally, no, I did not need to consult the dictionary, so retribution for my recondite posts will need to performed in some other manner, preferably in a form that avoids my lampooning you again.</p>
<p>With respect, I do not feel particularly lampooned :-P</p>
<p>MIT sells shirts that say:</p>
<p>CALTECH: Cause not everyone can go to MIT.</p>
<p>There's the answer.</p>
<p>Any reason why it says on princetonreview.com that Caltech's professors are horrible?</p>
<p>@qwerty693:
Actually, Caltech started that at MIT Prefrosh last year. The shirt read MIT: Cause not everyone can go to Caltech.</p>
<p>^That's ironic since MIT is renown to be harder to get into.</p>
<p>"Renown" (not a word) by whom? That is nonsense. It is hard to compare head to head without working in both admissions offices (and I would venture to say that you probably haven't even worked in one) but Caltech has higher average SAT scores and better high school grades in the pool of admitted students (and I am almost positive the same is true of the pool of applicants). There are quite a few students that Caltech would never take and MIT gladly does (and, of course, vice versa). The reasons for all this are complicated, but I don't like wrong statements by uninformed people without any data to back them up.</p>
<p>The Caltech shirt makes more sense. MIT is big enough that if they really wanted to, they could probably accept everyone who got into Caltech. And anyway, what can MIT put on the back of the shirt? Palm trees don't make much sense...</p>
<p>The original shirt sold at the coop says:</p>
<p>FRONT: Harvard
BACK: 'Cause not everyone can get into MIT.</p>
<p>The caltech hackers played off of that.</p>
<p>But just a sidenote. Because of their low-ish yield, Caltech has to accept a lot more applicants than is assumed here to reach their actual target class. Almost 3x as many. So, when it comes down to it, MIT really doesn't admit THAT many more students than does Caltech.</p>