<p>niiice post! that about sums up my thoughts, so ill leave it at that</p>
<p>easy major would still be managment but I think you should come to mit because you have a passion for your major not to look for an easy major</p>
<p>toptrade,
I am planning to do a double major in econ and management
i just wanted to know tht is the bachelor degree in mangement enuf for u or r u plannint to do an MBA also
this is coz i have been told that a bachelors degree is taken up by those whu dont plan on doing an MBA</p>
<p>8B is very easy, look it up. I think you need 8 classes for the entire major, none of which are difficult.</p>
<p>toptrade08, how challenging is 6.001 to someone who already has mastery of Scheme at a nontrivial level?
I'm not even going to go into how I wish there was a course like 6.821 that I could take in my senior year of high school.</p>
<p>English majors? LOL</p>
<p>I feel like at most midrange schools, the business school is considered very difficult--at least compared to most schools except engineering. At MIT, management is considered an easy major, and generally it is, comparitively. But it's better than nearly every other school in the country in business, which is a hard major in general. So if you want to major in management, come to MIT and do it because its program is outstanding; that's what I would do. I majored in computer science because I love it, not because people claimed it was hard. Don't go to some college where management will be considered relatively difficult, but not actually as hard or good as MIT.</p>
<p>It really depends on what you are going to pursue as a career. For example, if you want to go into investment banking, you almost definitely will be expected to attend business school for your MBA after 2 years as an analyst. That's just the nature of the industry. A lot of other finance jobs eventually lead to business school, which will open a lot of opportunities. </p>
<p>Short answer: your undergrad degree doesn't matter too much in the terms you asked. Hopefully, undergrad will give you the broad-based foundation to prepare you for the career you want. In most finance jobs, you are expected to get your MBA (unless you are so exceptional that they promote you to an associate position immediately after your 2-year analyst experience). </p>
<p>Hope that helps.</p>
<p>I'm not taking 6.001, but from what I know about it, it's a substantial commitment. If you have a good foundation in Scheme, that'll really help. Scheme is the kind of thing that few people know coming in, so that'll definitely give you an advantage. </p>
<p>However, regardless, I'm sure you'll still find the problem sets and projects to be quite substantial in terms of time commitment if you take the course. I suggest you go to the MIT OpenCourseWare website and find the 6.001 course materials. Check out the psets and see if they make sense to you.</p>
<p>The *real question should be why would such an outstanding individual like yourself want to take the easy way out? </p>
<p>I think MIT and the courses you take are about passion, not about how difficult the classes are. Honestly, if you really enjoy something and you're willing to put time and effort into it; it shouldn't be "hard" enough for you to want to quit. Courses and their difficulties should be based on an individual basis and whether or not your personality permits you to excel in certain majors.</p>
<p>I want to got to MIT for EECS which is said to be a hard major, but its also one of the most rigorous programs. IN my opinion you should never take a course because its easy, or disregard a course that is dificult.
You should take a course that interests you</p>
<p>It's idealistic to say that the courses you take should be all about your personality or all about what interests you. It would be nice if that were true for everybody. </p>
<p>But the brutal truth is, to survive at MIT, some people sometimes gotta cherry-pick easy classes so that they can get their GPA above water. Let's face it. Not everybody at MIT does well. Some people flunk out. Other people might not flunk out, but are just barely getting by. Nor can all of that be attributed to simple laziness or lack of motivation. Some of it is due to laziness, but not all of it. Some people at MIT work their hearts out and still flunk out or otherwise get grades that are just barely passing.</p>
<p>First a confession, I haven't been an MIT student for 27 years. Second, and this is the honest truth, NO one I knew then "barely got by" if they put the time and energy in to do the work they needed to do. I knew 2 guys who "left involuntarily" and in both cases, they just never were willing to deal with the workload. They could have if they wanted to, but they decided not to (my impression). People worked hard and people did well, even in tough majors, even with double majors. MIT has a lot of back up and resources to ensure that if you get in, you can do well. They say it and they mean it. As for cherry picking easy courses, I was a biology major and premed and chose to take an electronics course, and several computer sci classes (remember, 30 years ago)...not because they were easy, but because I couldn't see graduating from MIT and not taking some engineering classes. I took them Pass/fail, but managed to do okay (the grades wouldn't have killed my GPA).</p>
<p>I second those who ask, why would anyone ask about "easy" or "hard" majors at a place like MIT. The answer is, it is hard work!! One characteristic of MIT students then, and MIT alum now (and I am part of a family of them)...they work hard, and they like what they do! And, by the way, one of the hardest working people i knew at MIT was my freshman roommate, who majored in Architecture-- she loved it, she spent inordinate hours getting ready for all their presentations and never regretted a moment.. It is either what you want or it isn't...</p>
<p>I am starting to detect a very strong whiff of 'blaming the victim' here - that is, if an MIT student is not doing well, it must always be because he doesn't really want to do the work, and so it must be his own fault. </p>
<p>Like I said, laziness and immaturity does indeed describe some of those students who do poorly. However, I maintain that it doesn't describe all of them. Doing decently at MIT is not just a matter of working hard. It's also a matter of innate talent. Case in point. If you're a math major, then I don't care how hard you work - if you don't have a strong innate natural talent to do proofs, you're just not going to do well. You might make it to graduation, but you're not going to do it with strong grades.</p>
<p>Now you might say that if you can't do proofs well, then you shouldn't be a math major in the first place. However, once again, I would assert that once again, it's not that simple. What complicates things tremendously at MIT is that the competition is high. In higher-level MIT math courses, everybody is basically a math genius. So if you're not also a math genius, then you can work every single minute of the day and still only barely pass. Hard work and hard study only takes you so far - at some point, more studying doesn't make you any better. You know what you know, and if that's not good enough, then that's not good enough. I can practice playing basketball from this day until the end of time and I will still never be good enough to play in the NBA. Nor is this true only of the math major. Other majors that use math as a foundation, including all the MIT engineering majors, have a strong element of this feature - studying will only take you so far, and at some point, you either have the natural talent, or you don't. The guys who get the good grades at MIT are the guys who have both the talent and who study hard. If you are missing either of those elements, then you are unlikely to do well.</p>
<p>Sakky,
Of course, even among the bright kids at MIT there were the superbright. I knew 2 "gurus" when I was there- they were the EE(course 6)students everyone went to when they were stumped. Not only were they brilliant at an almost ephemeral level, they were also kind, good teachers, fun, and always willing to help us mere mortals.</p>
<p>I am not blaming by saying that "hard work" differentiates successful vs non-successful students at MIT. Perhaps we have different interpretations of success. I knew plenty of people who had B or B+ averages(I would guess, it really wasn't discussed much) who have gone on to do fantastic things. </p>
<p>I think that most admitted applicants to MIT are capable of getting grades in this range- if they select the right major FOR THEM. I would never have thought to major in math, or most of the engineering domains at MIT. Part of being bright is knowing what you are really good at...and being bright doesn't mean you are bright equally in all the domains at MIT or any other school. So, self guidance, or the willingness to accept outside guidance, is also a factor here. As you note, mathematicians are "born, not made" so this is a particular example indeed. </p>
<p>What I am saying is that if you are bright enough to be at MIT, but perhaps not gifted enough in Math to be a very successful math major, then you should also be capable of finding a successful niche for yourself academically at MIT-- if you are willing to work hard.</p>
<p>Well, it isn't simply a matter of getting a B average. I know MIT students that are flirting with a C average. And it's not just a matter of simple laziness, some of them work very hard, and still get C's. </p>
<p>I do agree with the gist of your 3rd paragraph, but there is also a rather darker part to it. It is clearly true that people need to select the right major for them. But it's not just a simple matter of knowing what you are good at. It's also a matter of what you are good at, relative to the difficulty of that major at MIT. </p>
<p>Case in point. A lot of people come to MIT intending to major in EECS - but then eventually drop out of EECS and major in something else because of the difficulty of the major. EECS is arguably the most difficult major at MIT. A lot (I would say darn near most) students who leave EECS could almost certainly have completed an EECS major at the vast majority of other schools out there. They just can't complete the EECS major at MIT. Hence, the fact that they came to MIT basically means that they effectively don't get to do the major that they really wanted to do. Some of them end up majoring in something that they don't really want to do very much at all, they do it just to be able to graduate. The fact is, while all MIT majors are difficult, some MIT majors are easier than others (which was the whole point of this thread), and the fact is, some of the relatively easier majors have students in them who are not really all that interested in the subject, but are there just because it's easier. </p>
<p>I know one MIT student who intended to major in Course 10 (ChemE), intending to go to medical school. When she realized how hard Course 10 really was, she quickly changed majors to Course 21, even though she wasn't really interested in Course 21. She made the change because, quite frankly, Course 21 is easier than Course 10, and she knew that she needed to present high grades to the med-school adcom. She ended up with top grades and got admitted to several top medical schools. She has always said that, quite honestly, she was extremely interested in chemical engineering, but she didn't think she'd be able to get good grades in it, and so she needed to do what she needed to do to get into med-school. If that meant choosing an easier major where she could get top grades, even if she didn't really care that much about the major, then so be it. She got admitted to where she wanted to go, so it's hard to argue with success. She played the game and she won. </p>
<p>Now don't get me wrong. MIT is clearly not the only school where this happens. Every school out there has difficult majors and easy majors, and within those easy majors, there are always students who are there not because they really care about the subject, but are there just because it's easy. In fact, I would argue that on a relative basis, MIT is quite well off in this respect, because the difference in difficulty between the easiest and hardest major at MIT is probably less than the difference at other schools. But my point is that while it is less prominent at MIT, it still happens.</p>
<p>Sakky,
I guess then the question is, is it better to have a C average at MIT or an A or B average elsewhere??? I'm not sure, what do you think?</p>
<p>For someone strong enough to be accepted at MIT, it seems a shame to have to study something you don't really love, just for a good GPA, that's for sure. There are plenty of other schools where you can get a fine education in EECS or ChemE other than MIT...</p>
<p>It comes down to the individual and the goals. The girl who wanted a good GPA for medical school might have been interested in Chem E, but was she ever going to work in the field?? Was med school always the primary goal?? Then, while she had to give up the Chem E, she clearly benefited from the options at MIT....like you say, hard to argue with success.</p>
<p>MIT has always said..if we accept you, you can do the work. They haven't said, if we accept you, you can do the work in course 6 or 18 or 10.....or whatever. I think for kids who have always been superior students, this life lesson might be a little more of a surprise than for others.</p>
<p>Well, simply put, I would argue that it is probably better to have an A or B average elsewhere than a C average at MIT or some other elite school. Now clearly, this is up to the individual, so everybody is going to have their own opinion about that. However, if for no other reason, you don't want to be flirting with a C average at any school (not just at MIT but at any school) for one simple reason - if you do, then every term, you are always skirting uncomfortably close to the possibility of being put on academic probation, or not even being allowed to graduate at all.</p>
<p>Case in point. I know another guy who went to another school (not MIT, but another school that is highly respected for engineering), and for his whole time there, had a GPA that was barely above a C average (a 2.0/4 at that school, a 3.0/5 at MIT). That school had a rule in which any term in which he got below a C average for that term, he would be put on probation, which is a prelude to being expelled. And if he didn't have an overall C average at the end, he wouldn't graduate. So basically, he spent his entire time at that school always worried about getting expelled and/or otherwise not graduating. In fact in his last semester, he was not able to interview for jobs the way that most seniors do in their last semester. Why not? Because he wasn't even sure if he was going to graduate in that semester. That would depend on what grades he got in that last semester, and if those grades pushed his overall GPA below a 2.0, he would not graduate. How can you interview with a company for a job upon graduation, have them offer you a job, and then have to go back and tell them that you can't take the job because you were unable to graduate? The guy eventually did graduate on time, with something like a 2.05/4, but the point is that his college years were simply hell for him. How would you like to spend all your college years constantly being threatened with expulsion or non-graduation? </p>
<p>I agree with you that it is a shame that people have to feel that they can't study what they love just to get a good GPA. But that's the world we live in. For certain graduate school admissions in particular, decisions hinge very heavily on GPA, without much regard for how difficult it is to get that GPA. Law and medical school admissions are particularly guilty of this. </p>
<p>I also question your notion of having to work in the field. You ask whether that girl was ever going to work as a chemical engineer. Well, I would ask, what does that have to do with anything? Plenty of people get degrees in subjects that they will never use ever in their lives. Two of the most popular career tracks for MIT engineers are management consulting and investment-banking, careers that have little if any relationship with engineering. In fact, I would argue that that girl who wanted to major in Course 10 (ChemE) and then go to med-school is pursuing a career path that is more in-line with her undergrad major than a guy who majors in Course 6 (EECS) and then goes to work at McKinsey. </p>
<p>Now, I do agree entirely with what you said in your 4th paragraph. And I would further strengthen it. If MIT accepts you, you can probably do the work - but not necessarily do the work in certain courses, and/or do the work with decent grades. It is entirely possible that you will have to choose an easier course just to survive and/or accept the fact that your grades may be quite mediocre. Hence, what I would say is that if you admitted to MIT, but you know or have reason to believe that you are significantly worse than the average student at MIT, then you might want to rethink whether you really want to go. If you are a below-average student at MIT, you would still be a highly above-average student at most other schools.</p>
<p>Sakky,
The dilemma articulated is clear. Someone is always going to be below average no matter where you go(ecept Lake Wobegon, evidently). Some people are better at enduring this (or enduring c's, or low GPA's) than others, for various reasons. Some people would rather be low man on the totem pole at MIT than top of the heap elsewhere...I am not sure there is an absolute right answer for this. This board surely seems filled with kids who would go to MIT in a heartbeat, no matter how they fared- whether this is "best" or not remains to be seen.</p>
<p>I'm not even talking about being below average. Obviously some people have to be below average. The question is, what happens to these 'below-average' people. Take the cross-town rival to MIT that shall remain unnamed. At that school, you can still wind up with quite a decent GPA even if you are below average. And certainly at that school, you would have to be REALLY REALLY REALLY below average in order to feel seriously threatened with expulsion. </p>
<p>Hence, the point is, whether you like it or not, the students at that school are basically guaranteed a degree (unless they really truly screw up royally), and with at least a half-decent GPA to boot. Hence, that school is basically looking to help out even those students who are performing below average. Like it or not, that's the situation. The same cannot really be said for MIT. At MIT, if you are doing well, then that's great for you. But if you are not doing well, then, frankly speaking, you are in a world of hurt.</p>