<p>Yes, there are some bad and uncaring professors. Yes, there are some incompetent TAs. There are also wonderful examples of both. It happens.</p>
<p>Students have to be proactive, though. If you have a bad TA, change your section. If you have a bad professor, there are other ways to learn the material. If you don't understand, go talk to the professor or the TA, or another section's TA, or your friends who already took the class. Talk to your friends about the professors and whether they are any good before you take the class - in my experience, people's thoughts on this were usually right. Or, in some departments, read the student guides to the classes. If you aren't given reading assignments, for heaven's sake, look up the topic in your textbook, or, if there's no textbook (or an awful textbook) for the class, a textbook in one of the libraries.</p>
<p>MIT is not a good place for people who expect to be handed things. Students are expected to be very independent. There are plenty of resources and options if you go looking.</p>
<p>Back to the OP's question: OP, you're missing the point. Those sentiments - I Hate This F***ing Place and I Have Truly Found Paradise - coexist in each individual student. That's the point. It's not an issue of any given person feeling one or the other.</p>
<p>I'd like to address the comment that MIT is a bad place for premeds. First of all, it clearly true that there is grade deflation at MIT. It IS harder than our ivy competitors. That's not something to be embarassed about. Harvard and Princeton admitted recently they had too much grade inflation. Specifically at Princeton, one guy told me that the molecular bio major (and most other majors) had ridiculous grade inflation; however, the grading of the chem major was pretty brutal so none of the premeds majored in chemistry there.</p>
<p>However, there are ways to protect your GPA, especially if you are fairly confident about your abilities. For one, you could take classes like organic chem on pass/fail if that is hard for you--or you could take it during the summer somewhere else. GIR's can be taken for the most part on pass/fail. Don't major in engineering unless you are really confident and interested in it. Again, you can try it out on pass/fail. A lot of people who are premed get themselves in trouble by majoring in chemE or EECS just because it's hard--sort of a macho thing. Also, space out your classes. Like someone said, there is some peer pressure to take many technical classes a term. If you come in with a fair amount of credit, it could be possible to take only 1-2 technical classes a term. The less you put on your plate, the easier it will be. Lastly, don't do extracurriculars right away unless you are one of those people that needs it as a stress-reliever. (I'm not talking about intramurals; I'm talking about major time commitments like a varsity sport.) Try to get established first before you try to do things to round out your application. One guy I knew who went to Harvard Med and was a mechanical engineering major at MIT said that he basically studied all the time the first two years (even though the first year was on pass/fail and he didn't really have to study to pass his classes.) If passing is easy for you on pass/fail, then go for straight "A"s. Do your best, and it will be easier to do that in the following semesters.</p>
<p>Hi All,
Thank you for your words of advice. My S is still debating, and totally distracted. Last night he said Stanford (at dinner), the MIT later, then Stanford at breakfast. Either place will be a geographical adventure. He loves urban Boston but the Farm is beautiful. He is social, but loves math/engineering and relates well across groups. He's not sure about grad school, and likes the idea of a co-terminal masters. The price is right at Stanford, not MIT, but we promised to "make it happen" wherever he goes. He inherited his indecisiveness from me. Thanks for any other thoughts that could persuade him (or me, actually).</p>
<p>differential: "There are n00bs out there. Someone must pwn those n00bs and free the internets of their stupidity. Everything else is low-priority."</p>
<p>The level of work is the same, but there's a perception that Stanford students are far more laid back. Not true. Have you heard the saying, "Stanford students are like ducks on a pond"? The pond looks so placid and calm in the sunlight, but beneath the surface, those ducks are paddling like mad just to stay afloat.</p>
<p>The student culture and the campus feel of MIT and Stanford are very, very different. I hope your son had a chance to visit both places.</p>
<p>@CalAlum,
On what do you base your prior assertion that the level of work is the same? Unless someone went to both schools for undergraduate, I can't see how someone could say this. Also performance after coming out of school is useless, since level of work is level of work, and there is often no correlation between how hard you work (after a certain point) and how well you do.</p>
<p>^^What I mean by "the level of work is the same" is that both Stanford and MIT offer a challenging course of study to students majoring in comparable courses: engineering or physics or English, for example.</p>
<p>This conclusion is based on the many individuals I know here in Silicon Valley who have graduated from either MIT or Stanford. I have also taught both MIT and Stanford graduates over the past ten years or so. </p>
<p>Because I'm currently teaching at Stanford, I'm familiar with some of the courses here, and because some of MIT's courseware is available online, I'm somewhat familiar with MIT's courseware.</p>
<p>Finally, anyone interested in comparing the level of difficulty in courses in the two programs has only to log on to the respective websites of the institutions to view the courses of study.</p>
<p>All the best to the students deciding where to matriculate. For many, it's an easy decision. Despite the fact that I like both Stanford and MIT, I encouraged my daughter to enroll in her first choice school: MIT. She's been very, very happy there, despite -- or perhaps becaue of -- the IHTFP/IHTFP phenomenon that has been explained on this thread.</p>
<p>I have taken significant number of undergrad courses at another prestigious university (though not Stanford,) and there was really no comparison in difficulty or the sheer volume of work. I also took a few technical courses at Harvard, and I have to say the same thing. </p>
<p>There is a reason why they use the firehose analogy for MIT and Caltech, and there is a reason why IHTFP exists for MIT but not Stanford. It's because it is harder. Also, some of the grad students from good private universities who TA'd my classes expressed some shock at the volume and rigor of homework given. </p>
<p>I also knew a lot of people who went to Stanford from my high school. They were laid back compared to the MIT people. And they were less academically intense. </p>
<p>I don't think programming ability is really a function of college anyway--it is generally largely self-taught. </p>
<p>Aren't you a humanities professor? How does that tell you anything about the level of rigor in the technical classes? I don't see how you could, say, look at the coursework in the chem E department and be able to comment on in it.</p>
<p>^^ Do you seriously think I'm foolish enough to get into a debate -- on an MIT message board -- about whether MIT is more of a firehose than Stanford? Hey, at MIT the firehose analogy is part of a cherished culture!! I'll just say this, though: as a humanities professor, I've enountered engineering students at Stanford who are so sleep deprived they can barely walk. And this was the point of my initial response to the parent who wanted some comparison of Stanford vs. MIT -- that although many people characterize Stanford as much more laid back and low key, a closer inspection often reveals that isn't the case, especially among the science and engineering majors.</p>
<p>"I'll just say this, though: as a humanities professor, I've enountered engineering students at Stanford who are so sleep deprived they can barely walk. "</p>
<p>MIT is predominantly a science and engineering school, whereas IMO Stanford is predominantly liberal arts and science with an engineering program (about 2/3 - 1/3 ?). Satisfying Stanford's ihum and other non-engineering graduation requirements while doing the engineering prereqs, make it a bit of a forced march to complete an engineering degree in 4 years. You dont really declare the engineering major for 2 years. Also, anecdotally, I have heard comments to the effect that there is a big difference in grading policies and workloads between pre-engineering/engineering courses and others. Part of the class would appear to drink from the firehose, while others may be sipping from a garden hose.</p>
<p>I'm beginning to think that MIT might be a dead-end for all but the very brilliant.
Recent news from the front lines:
1. Chemistry t.a. (not a M.I.T. grad) gave students erroneous factual information.
2. Math test: 98% = A; Class Average = approx. 85%; Under that = C and below.</p>
<p>S is yet undecided, and he is perfectly capable of handling rigor. He loves what he thinks is the collaborative nature of MIT. But I'm getting the impression that MIT is full of those who relish rigor not for the sake of learning, but for the sake of showing off (even among other MIT students), just as Harvard students are thought to love Harvard merely for the prestige.</p>
<p>Everyone will defend the rigor of one's own college, and it serves no purpose for those choosing. Individuals have power to determine what they gain in any situation.</p>
<p>I'd much rather hear about how the "rigor" helps one learn, and how that learning can be applied to help the world.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But I'm getting the impression that MIT is full of those who relish rigor not for the sake of learning, but for the sake of showing off (even among other MIT students)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Who says that it's an either/or situation? ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'd much rather hear about how the "rigor" helps one learn
[/quote]
</p>
<p>To give a very simple answer...I learned more from being in classes where more is expected of students. I learned to think differently, as well. And I think I am a better person, a better student, and a better worker, because I was challenged, and because I had to work hard. I think I value my degree and my education more. I am certainly more resourceful.</p>
<p>
[quote]
and how that learning can be applied to help the world.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think rigor itself necessarily does much for this. I think MIT's emphasis on theory and applications going hand-in-hand, and the combination of intellectualism and enthusiasm for hands-on work among the students, does more for that.</p>
<p>There is NO question whatsoever that MIT has a very collaborative culture: students are extremely helpful to one another. It's a wonderful place in that respect.
However, I would agree with you that, from what I have been told, students are somewhat academically masochistic. But I don't think it's so much a prestige issue, as it is that they are interested in so many of the varied offerings that MIT makes available. As a result, they tend to take particularly punishing course loads -- and then gripe about being "hosed." What disappoints me, with what I perceive is a key aspect of the culture, is that students are too passive when it comes to standing up for their own interests. They accept, for example, that it's fine for the Chemistry Professor not to bother giving reading assignments -- or doing what many other professors do in the way of test prep.; they accept poor teaching from less-than-competent TA's; they accept grade distributions that jeopardize many a student's post-graduate ambitions. I guess I'm still too much of a '60's kid (well, not exactly a kid anymore!): if you're not part of a solution, you're part of the problem. Conditions -- academic and living -- should be better in such an illustrious institution (7th largest endowment in the U.S.).
The fact that many students seem to be passive, and accept sub par treatment and conditions, might be an indication that they think that by doing so they are being "tough," and "resilient" -- key words in the MIT lexicon. I wish I could perceive more assertiveness in the the student body; and I wish the Administration would demonstrate more care and concern -- and not just by hosting free food events (so redolent of bread and circuses in Roman times).</p>