harvard engineering

College Majors Engineering Majors
21

<p>
[quote]
Nevertheless, I think this is all missing the point anyway. I believe the OP wanted to know about the state of the Harvard engineering program.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think the OP wanted to know about Harvard engineering in the context that it was supposed to be getting "revamped". Anyone actually know anything about this? Are they doing something to Harvard engineering?</p>

<p>
[quote]
But when we're talking about engineering at Harvard, all of a sudden, everybody is recommending some other school. Why the double standard? Why does Harvard get singled out?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>(Because other people think it's fun to hit the big red Sakky Essay Generate Command button?) </p>

<p>I dunno... I think it's kind of backwards to say that Harvard's engineering program is great because you can take courses at MIT. It's kind of like taking pride in your next-door neighbor's lawn.</p>

<p>If you fit in at Harvard and can get in and want to go there and aren't willing to consider the possibility that there may be schools where you can find both engineering AND non-engineering options that might be better for you, then I guess the cross-registration thing is fine, if you want to ride the bus back and forth across Cambridge every day.</p>

22

<p>
[quote]
I guess Harvard gets singled out just cause they don't see it highly ranked compared to MIT, Stanford and much less UIUC.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, well, nobody seemed to have any problem with SJSU. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Just out of curiosity what other classes does MIT require from all its students besides multivariable calc?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Biology, chemistry, physics. </p>

<p>To give you an example, let's say you're a physics major. At almost any school, you don't have to take any biology coursework. You can also usually also get away without chemistry coursework. But not at MIT. </p>

<p>
[quote]
If a science major at MIT can't handle a class in multivariable calc they don't belong at MIT =P

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, let me tell you this. I know some MIT science students and graduates who have never taken multivar calculus and will surely admit that they are mediocre at best at even single variable calculus. I don't even think they can take even a basic derivative. </p>

<p>Ridiculous, you might say? Well, let me tell you the rest of the story. They are MIT biology students/alumni. More importantly, they are PhD students/alumni. And the truth of the matter is, you don't really need to know calculus - and certainly not multivar calculus - to get a PhD and become a highly respected researcher in biology. The MIT bio PhD program certainly doesn't require that its students learn multivar. Yet I would argue that they have just as much right to belong at MIT as any of the other students. Frankly, what is a more impressive scientific accomplishment: getting your bachelor's at MIT or getting your science PhD at MIT? </p>

<p>Hence, you have the interesting story of MIT requiring of its undergrads what it will not require of its grad students. In other words, the MIT undergrad bio students end up knowing more about multivar calculus than do the PhD bio students. What that also means is that there probably are some people who successfully completed their bio PhD's at MIT who would not have been able to complete their bio bachelor's at MIT (because they wouldn't have been able to pass multivar). </p>

<p>
[quote]
And besides, I don't care about ethics but my school made me take it anyway.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, but the difference is that the ethics class is presumably easy - or at least, easier than the required MIT technical requirements. After all, think about what we're talking about here. We're not just talking about taking an ethics class that was probably filled with students who mostly didn't know anything about the topic and didn't care. This is MIT we're talking about here. We're talking about being forced to take multivar - and subject to the grading curve - with some of the most technically savviest students in the world. It would be like me being forced to take a music composition class...at Juilliard.</p>

23

<p>
[quote]
Well, let me tell you this. I know some MIT science students and graduates who have never taken multivar calculus and will surely admit that they are mediocre at best at even single variable calculus. I don't even think they can take even a basic derivative. </p>

<p>Ridiculous, you might say? Well, let me tell you the rest of the story. They are MIT biology students/alumni. More importantly, they are PhD students/alumni. And the truth of the matter is, you don't really need to know calculus - and certainly not multivar calculus - to get a PhD and become a highly respected researcher in biology. The MIT bio PhD program certainly doesn't require that its students learn multivar. Yet I would argue that they have just as much right to belong at MIT as any of the other students. Frankly, what is a more impressive scientific accomplishment: getting your bachelor's at MIT or getting your science PhD at MIT?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You seem to know a lot of people =P</p>

<p>Honestly someone who got into MIT must have exceptional SAT/ACT test scores in all areas. I still think multivariable calc is not that difficult of a subject that MIT students should be getting thrown off by it. I'm not surprised MIT requires biology, chemistry, and physics...most Bachelor of SCIENCE degrees requires taking at least two sciences. Even if it is a BS in Business.</p>

24

<p>
[quote]
Well, let me tell you this. I know some MIT science students and graduates who have never taken multivar calculus and will surely admit that they are mediocre at best at even single variable calculus. I don't even think they can take even a basic derivative.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Likewise, I was admitted to MIT grad school and I haven't taken biology since sixth grade life science. I have never in my life dissected anything, and I have no clue how a cell works. I know that the mitochondrion has something to do with energy production. I think something called mitosis is generally involved with cells because I've heard of cell mitosis. I'm pretty sure that livers produce enzymes, but I'm more certain that they can be eaten with fava beans and a nice chianti.</p>

<p>I am, however, quite good at structural engineering. Just as I'm sure that the biology graduate students at MIT are quite good at biology.</p>

<p>Where were we going again...?</p>

<p>
[quote]
I think the OP wanted to know about Harvard engineering in the context that it was supposed to be getting "revamped". Anyone actually know anything about this? Are they doing something to Harvard engineering?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>My question still seems to stand... I'm still interested in what Harvard's doing with their engineering program.</p>

<p>I found this:
IEEE</a> Spectrum: Engineering the Harvard Engineer</p>

<p>And it sounds like they're trying to get back in the biz by appealing to areas of engineering that Harvard actually stands a chance with. So, that's the deal. Does anybody have any more info on this?</p>

25

<p>
[quote]
Honestly someone who got into MIT must have exceptional SAT/ACT test scores in all areas. I still think multivariable calc is not that difficult of a subject that MIT students should be getting thrown off by it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Contrary to popular belief, MIT does not admit all math superstars. That would make for quite a boring school if some artsy types weren't thrown in as well. I'm sure those types generally don't stand out in classical mechanics or calc. Recall that the SAT/ACT only test basic, basic math.</p>

26

<p>
[quote]
Contrary to popular belief, MIT does not admit all math superstars. That would make for quite a boring school if some artsy types weren't thrown in as well. I'm sure those types generally don't stand out in classical mechanics or calc. Recall that the SAT/ACT only test basic, basic math.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>MIT</a> Profile - SAT Scores and Admissions Data for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology - MIT
In 2007:

[quote]
Percent of Applicants Admitted: 12.5%
Test Scores -- 25th / 75th Percentile
SAT Critical Reading: 660 / 760
SAT Math: 720 / 800
SAT Writing: 660 / 750
ACT Composite: 31 / 34
ACT English: 30 / 35
ACT Math: 32 / 35

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Usually people scoring this high on math on SAT/ACT can handle multivariable calc. That's all I'm saying.</p>

27

<p>Well since this thread has basically served its purpose, I'll derail it.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Usually people scoring this high on math on SAT/ACT can handle multivariable calc. That's all I'm saying.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well now you're changing your statement to "usually", so I can't really disagree with that, but I personally know counterexamples of the absolute case because I know people who scored 750-800 on their math SAT's and had to retake calc at MIT. Like I said, the SAT/ACT do not test your aptitude even at the precalc level.</p>

28

<p>
[quote]
You seem to know a lot of people =P

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You hang around the academic community, you inevitably get to know lots of people in academia. </p>

<p>
[quote]
most Bachelor of SCIENCE degrees requires taking at least two sciences. Even if it is a BS in Business.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Or a BS in Literature, whatever that is. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I am, however, quite good at structural engineering. Just as I'm sure that the biology graduate students at MIT are quite good at biology.</p>

<p>Where were we going again...?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Where we were going is that MIT seems to be perfectly happy to have students who know very little about certain technical disciplines, as long as they're graduate students. But apparently not undergrads.</p>

<p>The larger point is that not everybody fits into the MIT undergrad program. Aibarr's point is a perfect illustration: just because you may want to be an engineer does not necessarily mean that you want to learn biology, as MIT would force all its undergrads to do. Such a person might well be better off at Harvard, even for engineering. That person could enjoy the benefits of the MIT curriculum through xreg, but not have to put up with any of the MIT requirements that he doesn't want to take.</p>

29

<p>I find it amazing how all my comments can be conveniently contorted to fit one of sakky's points.</p>

<p>MIT forces you to take biology? Really? </p>

<p>Actually, come to think of it, Rice tried to force me to take biology, too, but I read up on ABET requirements and managed to talk the Dean of Engineering into letting me (and several of my very impressed and grateful colleagues) substitute a course called "The Planets," which was basically Extraterrestrial Rocks for Jocks. You can get around various requirements occasionally if you do your research... probably even at MIT. It's kind of goofy to choose a school just based upon the ease with which you can weasel your way out of specific requirements, though.</p>

30

<p>Heavens forbid you be forced to take calculus and science courses to fulfill your Bachelors of Science!</p>

31

<p>
[quote]
Heavens forbid you be forced to take calculus and science courses to fulfill your Bachelors of Science!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Especially if it's a "Bachelor's of Science" in Literature, right? </p>

<p>I still don't know exactly how a Bachelor's of Science in Literature is even possible, but apparently MIT offers such a program. And yes, to complete this literature degree, you have to take a bunch of math and science courses. </p>

<p>LIT@MIT:</a> How to Major</p>

<p>
[quote]
I find it amazing how all my comments can be conveniently contorted to fit one of sakky's points.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What can I say, you've become one of my anecdotes. </p>

<p>
[quote]
It's kind of goofy to choose a school just based upon the ease with which you can weasel your way out of specific requirements, though.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, according to your own story, you apparently managed to weasel your way out of the biology requirements at Rice.</p>

32

<p>
[quote]
Actually, come to think of it, Rice tried to force me to take biology, too, but I read up on ABET requirements and managed to talk the Dean of Engineering into letting me (and several of my very impressed and grateful colleagues) substitute a course called "The Planets," which was basically Extraterrestrial Rocks for Jocks. You can get around various requirements occasionally if you do your research... probably even at MIT. It's kind of goofy to choose a school just based upon the ease with which you can weasel your way out of specific requirements, though.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>More to the point, I have never heard of anybody at MIT ever being allowed to 'weasel' (your words, not mine) their way out of biology. The requirement isn't an engineering requirement, but a general university requirement, and I'm quite sure that a lot of students (such as the Literature students) would have wanted to get out it if they could. </p>

<p>But I suppose that's because maybe that's just because they didn't have somebody like you (aibarr) to show them the way. I would indeed be quite impressed if somebody figured out a way to get out of a requirement that every MIT undergrad has been forced to take, whether they liked it or not. </p>

<p>Nevertheless, as much as I like MIT, I have to stand my ground and say that not wanting to be forced to take the full slate of GIR's is a valid reason not to choose MIT. Why choose a school if you already know that you dislike an integral part of the curriculum?</p>

33

<p>To put it simply, I would try to go elsewhere if I were somewhat sure of engineering. Agreed that most students are not going to have a great idea what they're going to do...but quite a few people seem to pick engineering and stick with it for career purposes. And generally, if you want another technical field, MIT has great resources sitting there for you.</p>

<p>I'd not go to Harvard with the intent of trying out engineering unless I REALLY REALLY had no idea I wanted to do engineering or another technical major, and was just giving it a shot. It's more important, I think, to warn high school seniors that they may not know what they're talking about when they say they want to be engineers.</p>

34

<p>"It's kind of goofy to choose a school just based upon the ease with which you can weasel your way out of specific requirements, though."</p>

<p>In general I agree, but not if the requirements are a huge part of the school! E.g., choosing to go to a school like Caltech or Harvey Mudd is a big decision, because a lot of what you do will be <em>required</em> of you, in a boot camp sense.</p>

35

<p>
[quote]
Well, according to your own story, you apparently managed to weasel your way out of the biology requirements at Rice.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But if I hadn't been able to get out of taking biology, I wouldn't have decided NOT to go to Rice. That's my point. I'd have just taken biology.</p>

36

<p>
[quote]
Especially if it's a "Bachelor's of Science" in Literature, right? </p>

<p>I still don't know exactly how a Bachelor's of Science in Literature is even possible, but apparently MIT offers such a program. And yes, to complete this literature degree, you have to take a bunch of math and science courses.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And Berkeley offers a BA in Computer Science. What's your point?</p>

37

<p>"And Berkeley offers a BA in Computer Science. What's your point?"</p>

<p>I think Sakky's point is fairly clear, which is that not everyone getting a degree in literature really wants a ton of math and science requirements, and that it's legitimate to go somewhere else if you don't want that. I wouldn't really go to MIT to get a literature degree anyway...but anyway, I think his point is clear enough. It's that escaping a school because its program forces you to do lots of things you don't want to is legitimate.</p>

<p>For instance, if you go to Harvey Mudd just because you like math, and severely don't want to take anything else, well they have a Core which will make you BRUTALLY take other things. What if I loved the people at Harvey Mudd? What if I loved that the professors really care about their students and teach far better than those at many other universities do on average? </p>

<p>Well, guess what people, <em>a lot of time you spend is on your academics</em> -- and if requirements are so substantial that they may take 2 years to complete, 2/4 years, I think going to a different school is a pretty good option. Atmosphere isn't everything -- structure of academic program is crucial.</p>

<p>Now, I am not suggesting that aibarr or someone similar should leave a school just because they don't like say just one random class they have to take. That's pushing it too far. I posted on STanford's forum about someone concerned its economics major requires too much mathematics that they really shouldn't shy away from Stanford just because of that, well unless it's SO much math that it'd prevent them from enjoying the school otherwise.</p>

38

<p>
[quote]
For instance, if you go to Harvey Mudd just because you like math, and severely don't want to take anything else, well they have a Core which will make you BRUTALLY take other things. What if I loved the people at Harvey Mudd? What if I loved that the professors really care about their students and teach far better than those at many other universities do on average?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's kind of extreme to say that someone would choose Harvey Mudd and not be at all interested in math, science, or engineering. That's like saying that I seriously love Julliard but don't really have any interest in being in the performing arts. There are certain things that are fairly integral to the existence of a university or college that an applicant can't ignore when they're applying places. There are myriad fish in the academic sea, and I think that if you can't come close to finding a place that fits most of your needs, then you're not keeping an open mind, or you're not looking hard enough.</p>

39

<p>
[quote]
I think Sakky's point is fairly clear, which is that not everyone getting a degree in literature really wants a ton of math and science requirements, and that it's legitimate to go somewhere else if you don't want that. I wouldn't really go to MIT to get a literature degree anyway...but anyway, I think his point is clear enough. It's that escaping a school because its program forces you to do lots of things you don't want to is legitimate.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Then they shouldn't have gone for a BS in literature they should have gone to a liberal arts school not MIT.</p>

40

<p>
[quote]
Then they shouldn't have gone for a BS in literature they should have gone to a liberal arts school not MIT.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Which is precisely what I've been saying throughout this thread: it all depends on how sure you are about engineering - or more specifically, a technical major - you are. If you're not that sure, you shouldn't choose MIT. </p>

<p>What I think is the real issue is what I have already said: most high school seniors don't really know what they want to do. I remember my old undergrad days: lots of people thought they wanted to be engineers but then ended up not getting engineering degrees, and yes, a significant fraction of them did indeed end up getting humanities degrees. Heck, I think there was even a guy who started off as an engineer and then ended up getting a degree in Women's Studies (and yes, this was a guy). One of the problems with MIT as that it forces you to restrict your choices before you may be ready to do so. You say that if you wanted to get a literature degree, you shouldn't have gone to MIT, and I would agree...if you already know that you want to get a lit degree. The problem is that many people don't know that going in. </p>

<p>
[quote]
And Berkeley offers a BA in Computer Science. What's your point?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think the point is quite obvious, as mathboy98 pointed out. The Berkeley BACS program is practically the same as the BS EECS (CS option) program. But the MIT BS Literature program is quite different from any other literature program in that not only are you forced to take a bunch of technical coursework, but you also have to pass such coursework at the level of the typical MIT student. It would be like me, as an engineering student, being forced to not only to pass a music composition course, but to do so against students from Juilliard, and I think we can all agree that most engineering students would fail miserably. </p>

<p>
[quote]
It's kind of extreme to say that someone would choose Harvey Mudd and not be at all interested in math, science, or engineering. That's like saying that I seriously love Julliard but don't really have any interest in being in the performing arts. There are certain things that are fairly integral to the existence of a university or college that an applicant can't ignore when they're applying places. There are myriad fish in the academic sea, and I think that if you can't come close to finding a place that fits most of your needs, then you're not keeping an open mind, or you're not looking hard enough.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think it's more that people's interests often times shift with time. Surely all of us can think of topics that we used to enjoy in the past that we no longer find interesting. That sort of transformation is especially common during college which is (supposed to be) a time of rapid intellectual development and maturation during which you will discover new interests and possibly become less enamored with old interests. When I was younger, I used to love playing chess, but now I don't really care, and conversely, it was during my senior year in college that I became interested in cultural anthropology, when I never used to care about that before. Similarly, my brother used to think that geology/geophysics was the most fascinating subject in the world - even graduating with honors from Caltech and going on to grad school at Stanford in that topic. But now, he doesn't care anymore, and is far more interested in social psychology and politics. In fact, I would argue that it is the duty of a good college to spark new interests in its students, and that if you left college with the same interests that you came in with, then, frankly, you didn't really get a proper college education. </p>

<p>What that means is that some people will really are interested in math/science/eng will go to a school like Harvey Mudd (or, to a lesser extent, MIT) and only there will have their interests switch to the humanities, the result of which is that they become stuck. </p>

<p>It all gets back to the original problem: most high school students don't really know what they want to do. Certainly, if we could all perfectly predict the precise subject that we wanted to do, we would just go to the best school we could get into that offers that subject. But we can't do that. I wish we could.</p>