Is MIT losing it?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Massachusetts Institute of Technology
61

<p>Stanford is an excellent school. </p>

<p>But your ignorance is just too much. Did you even read the thread? Did you even really read what sakky wrote when you had that debate? sakky debated within your 30 yrs threshold, not 50 yrs. Go back to that thread and read it over again. Furthermore, your words don't amount to much when you've already conceded to sakky. Also, WS17 noted on page three that most of the people you listed a few pages back have affiliations with MIT. Besides, MIT does a lot of stuff in the background too (examples would be the ones LauraN gave the post before you, which you seemingly failed to read). And then let's just go back to the patents... MIT beats out Stanford every year. This does not imply that MIT is better than Stanford... I'm bringing up the patents to make the point that a lot is going on at MIT. Now, I'm just going to ignore your trolling.</p>

62

<p>Man, calm down. If you get too emotional, I don't bother replying your post any more.</p>

<p>Counting the # of patents doesn't help you. I know it favors MIT because MIT is much bigger than Stanford in engineering in size. More importantly, you need to look at the impact of those patents. How many of MIT's inventions in last 30 years can be compared to Stanford's breakthroughs, such as Google, microprocessor, internet TCP/IP protocol, robot arm, gene cloning, DNA micro array, and GPS etc? You tell me. Bother to list your MIT's breakthroughs and tell me they are indeed breakthroughs? How have MIT's inventions impact your daily life? If you really loves MIT, you might want to spend some time to do your home work first. Again, please talk about the ones after 1970, because I only said Stanford > MIT in engineering since 1970.</p>

<p>Sakky's list after 1970 is not that impressive, like I already pointed it out. He had to extend his time frame to the last 50 years frequently to match against Stanford's list. </p>

<p>When I discussed with Sakky. I didn't concede. I just wanted to end the discussion because that discussion seemed to be endless if I continued. As I said before, I didn't convince him and he didn't convince me either.</p>

<p>My guess is that Sakky attended MIT. I didn't attend Stanford. So I think I'm less biased than Sakky. I based my conclusion by looking at data: the hard facts. I know sometimes facts hurt.</p>

63

<p>Quote: "Also, WS17 noted on page three that most of the people you listed a few pages back have affiliations with MIT."</p>

<p>Most? Are you kidding? I listed about 50 Stanford people. How many can you find have also MIT ties? Again, do your homework first. Maybe do it by a group study with WS17?</p>

64

<p>My three older kids got their BS respectively from Caltech, Stanford and MIT.
Each school in their own way provided excellent education for my kid. They all got a graduate fellowship from NSF sometimes during their Ph.D. study afterward. I believe all these schools are generating innovations and discoveries at ever increasing speed and involving more and more colloboration with other institutions. MIT is certain not lossing it. All these institutions will provide more than enough opportunity for their student's growth. It is up to individual student to use their opportunity wisely.</p>

65

<p>And that should be the last word on the issue. Probably not many others with that kind of insight.</p>

66

<p>

Just in case anybody is unaware, let me state unequivocally that this is totally awesome.</p>

<p>inverse, I think you should take all the credit -- clearly something was amazing in your parenting. :D</p>

67

<p>I am beginning to see some meaningful answers to my original question. I thank everyone who is behaving civil and wish the the rest health. So far based on the answer I have been seeing, I conclude that MIT is still strong. However, unless something happens Stanford, UC Berkeley with their momentum will solidly pass it. I really don't want to see MIT as Missed It Totally.</p>

68

<p>Inverse,
Did you speak at an info meeting in Miami several years ago? If so, you told of each child's experience (working late, forgetting Ipods or cellphones, etc) while at S, M, & C--Your talk made Caltech #1 for my S</p>

69

<p>scientist,</p>

<p>I was on the phone earlier today with Susan Hockfield; I notified her of MIT's dire situation and she hastily read the incisive analysis you provided. She was duly alarmed and has ordered MIT to Force Protection Condition Charlie, instructing all nonessential personnel to hastily gain momentum. Indeed, she halted the production of Missed It Totally signs to devote more resources to momentum-generation.</p>

<p>The latest polls show MIT running a close second, neck-and-neck with Barack Obama, but most Iowa voters remain undecided.</p>

<p>In the meantime, while Internet trolls constructed meaningless tallies, students at Berkeley, Caltech, MIT, and Stanford did real work and scholars conducted real research to make the world a smarter and better place. Imagine that.</p>

70

<p>BenG, you get mootmom's gold star of the day for that post. Bravo! :)</p>

71

<p>
[Quote]

I was on the phone earlier today with Susan Hockfield; I notified her of MIT's dire situation and she hastily read the incisive analysis you provided. She was duly alarmed and has ordered MIT to Force Protection Condition Charlie, instructing all nonessential personnel to hastily gain momentum. Indeed, she halted the production of Missed It Totally signs to devote more resources to momentum-generation.

[/Quote]
</p>

<p>Ben, you're awesome!</p>

72

<p>Sklog_W, I do not know how much the Olin professor's make. I know it's comprible to what professors make at other schools, but I do not think it is a lot more. But I do know that many of them gave up tenure or tenure-tracked positions at other schools to come to Olin (which offers no tenure). I know some of them came for the chance to get to teach the way they want to teach and be able to easily start new and innovative courses without all the red tape politics that tend to be thicker at more established schools. It's certainly not just about money. Some of them were frustrated with how engineering is taught at their old schools and wanted the chance to shape the curriculum, which is much easier again at a new school. And I think some were sick of having to fight amongst different departments for money and space and people. And at Olin, we have no academic departments.</p>

<p>Just some thoughts.</p>

73

<p>
[quote]
Sakky's list after 1970 is not that impressive, like I already pointed it out. He had to extend his time frame to the last 50 years frequently to match against Stanford's list.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, frankly, if you remember from the debate, Stanford's list in the last 30 years ain't that impressive either. Many of Stanford's innovations that you cited in that other thread also occurred outside of the 30 year window. </p>

<p>
[quote]
More importantly, you need to look at the impact of those patents. How many of MIT's inventions in last 30 years can be compared to Stanford's breakthroughs, such as Google, microprocessor, internet TCP/IP protocol, robot arm, gene cloning, DNA micro array, and GPS etc?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>See, there you go again. The microprocessor is not within the 30 year window, having been invented in 1971. If you're allowed to invoke that, I don't see what the problem is with inventing MIT's ownership of the integrated circuit. As far as TCP/IP is concerned, again, outside of the 30-year window - having been invented sometime in the early to mid 1970's. If you want to invoke it anyway, then I don't see why we can't invoke the development of the general Arpanet by MIT graduates Larry Roberts and Leonard Kleinrock, which occurred only a few years previously to TCP/IP, in the late 60's. GPS? Again, the contributions of Stanford (specifically of Brad Parkinson) occurred in the early 1960's. If you want to invoke that anyway, then I see no issue with invoking MIT graduate and professor Ivan Getting, whose contributions to GPS occurred mostly in the 1950's. </p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Getting%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Getting&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Gene cloning? DNA microarrays? I think all of that is comparably matched with MIT's strong involvement with the Human Genome Project and the activities occurring in the Broad Institute (formerly the Whitehead Institute). </p>

<p>
[quote]
My guess is that Sakky attended MIT. I didn't attend Stanford. So I think I'm less biased than Sakky. I based my conclusion by looking at data: the hard facts. I know sometimes facts hurt.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I would hardly say that I am 'biased' for or against any school. In fact, you will find in my previous posts that I have often times recommended that certain people attend Stanford over MIT (and that others attend MIT over Stanford). And in fact, even now, as in our old previous thread, I am not claiming that MIT is demonstrably better than Stanford when it comes to technology. But on the other hand, I do not see that Stanford is demonstrably better than MIT.</p>

74

<p>
[quote]
Understand this is MIT forum. I saw some people claim "MIT=engineeiring, engineering=MIT". To me that is sort of baseless.</p>

<p>When I think which university has changed my daily life and made it better, the university that often comes into my mind is Stanford, not MIT.</p>

<p>When I was in graduate school, I used Microsoft word and Latex to write my class project reports and ph.d thesis. Microsoft word was created by a Stanford ph.d. Latex is based on TEX, an invention by Stanford Professor Don Knuth. When I took engineering related classes, I used MATLAB for computing and simulation. MATLAB is still a tool I am using in my work. MATLAB was invented by Stanford graduates Cleve Moler and John Little (acknowlleged that John Little is a MIT graduate as well). I use Yahoo everyday for checking weather and looking for driving directions. I use Google everyday, to search and learn new stuff. Even my little son uses Google to gather information for his school projects. Both Yahoo and Google were invented by Stanford Ph.d students. I know my computer is powered by an Intel chip and the first chip was invented by Ted Hoff, a Stanford Ph.d. My computer and laptop are linked to the internet through a CYSCO router box. CYSCO is founded by Stanford people. And Stanford engineer Bill Yeager invented the multiprotocol router. My broad band internet connection was based on Stanford's john Cioffi's DSL technology. In the past, I used 56k modem for internet connection, which was also invented by a Stanford ph.d and professor Brent Townshend. I know the internet is ruled by TCP/IP protocol. The TCP/IP was designed by Vinton Cerf and Bob Kahn. Cerf is a Stanford graduate and a former professor. The computer mouse I am using now is invented by SRI's Doug Engelbart. SRI (the Stanford Research Institute) used to be a part of Stanford University. The most powerful computer in my company was made by SUN, which stands for STANFORD UNIVERSITY NETWORK. And a Stanford ph.d dropout Andy Bechtosheim designed the first SUN workstation on Stanford's compus.
I recently bought a GPS device for my car. I rely on it heavily when travell to a place I have never gone before. I know GPS was an invention by Stanford's ph.d. and professor Bradford Parkinson.</p>

<p>So when thinking about the modern technologies that impact my life, it is Stanford, Stanford, and Stanford.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And my response to all that is simple. The Internet is basically just the old Arpanet on steroids. Who developed the original Arpanet? MIT graduates Kleinrock and Roberts. The Internet is generally not the important technology that people use, as the Internet didn't get become popular until the 1990s with the development of the WWW. And what standards body controls the development WWW? The W3C, led by MIT prof Tim Berners-Lee, who, in case you are wondering, created the W3C * after * he joined MIT. Heck, he FOUNDED the W3C at MIT. GPS? As I explained before, Parkinson is generally understood to be a co-inventor of GPS with MIT graduate and professor Ivan Getting. As far as your cellphone is concerned, I know that mine uses the CDMA coding technology, developed by MIT graduates Viterbi and Jacobs, who founded Qualcomm. Most people's cellphones, including yours, use a DSP manufactured by Texas Instruments. TI was founded by MIT graduate Cecil Green. Your PC itself probably contains chips from Intel, yet Intel was founded by MIT graduate Robert Noyce - who was himself the inventor of the integrated circuit. </p>

<p>So it seems to me that you use quite a few MIT technologies in your life, yet you refuse to acknowledge them as such. What's up with that?</p>

75

<p>
[quote]
I am happy to see this thread is turning out to be a place where some professional posters practice their sense of humor. </p>

<p>But, the original question remains.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Since you still seem to think that the original question has not been answered, take a look at some of my old posts. I don't see any evidence that MIT is 'losing it'. {Hell, if you really want to point out some school has really 'lost it', I would have to say that that, sadly, is more applicable to Berkeley, who in my opinion, had its golden age a few decades ago when it looked like it might make a serious run at being the #1 university in the world, yet has slipped in recent years - but I digress.} After all, MIT has taken the top overall engineering ranking in every single USNews issue (undergrad and grad) in history. What more do you want?</p>

<p>What I have said before is that MIT companies tend to specialize in producer goods, which is perhaps why you've never heard of them. Koch Industries is the largest privately owned firm in the world by revenue, and run by MIT graduates. Yet nobody has ever heard of Koch or any of its brands, because, except for perhaps Purina catfood, they don't really sell consumer goods. What they sell is industrial machinery, pulp paper, chemicals, and other items that consumers don't buy. Right now, with the war going on, we see plenty of use of MIT technologies. Again, the issue is that consumers don't know who makes that stuff because consumers (I hope) don't go around buying cruise missiles. </p>

<p>But the point is this. I see no evidence that MIT is somehow 'losing' its status as a top technical school. You seem to be talking as if MIT somehow was the undisputed top dog in the past and has somehow declined. Yet the fact of the matter is, MIT has never been the undisputed top dog. MIT has always had a challenger, and usually several. For example, before WW2, Caltech was actually probably a stronger technical school. Caltech was actually probably the first school in the US (along with Harvard) to establish itself as a research powerhouse, and Caltech has always been a worthy competitor ever since. Berkeley, as I mentioned before, had a glorious period a few decades ago and in some respects is still a highly worthy challenger, especially in graduate education. Stanford is now a worthy competitor. But the point is, I see no compelling evidence that MIT has 'declined'. Obviously some parts of MIT have declined - notably MIT's dominance in the minicomputer arena (as the entire minicomputer industry has died). But MIT has simply moved its expertise to other areas, like cellphones (i.e. CDMA).</p>

76

<p>molliebatmit, thanks</p>

<p>bookworm, I could have at Miami information session. I am glad your son like Caltech.</p>

77

<p>Good comments,
This is turning out to be a successful Thread. We have all sorts of people here. From junior members to professional posters that provide amusements for others. Perhaps, that is why no one is "moving."</p>

<p>But, the point was having a great history "proves nothing." Of course apparantly to some nothing "proves nothing."</p>

78

<p>Okay, how about we all agree on this:</p>

<p>Everyone is too obsessed with rankings now. If I got into Stanford, Caltech, and MIT (as it stood I never considered Stanford or Caltech at all so this is purely hypothetical) it would be a kind of tough decision, but I would have hands down picked MIT. Why? I can tell you I wouldn't even consider the individual merits of the school's engineering department. Going to any of these schools instead of another will not make or break you in the long run, but what will is how happy you are at the place you are living. Before I even started the college process I said I wanted to live in a big city, I wanted an urban campus, I wanted a medium sized school, and I would prefer to not leave the northeast (so I could easily come home, and also visit my friends where they were going to school). This would lead me to easily choose MIT as where I wanted to go, and now I could not be happier with my choice.</p>

<p>Would I have gotten as good of an education at Caltech or stanford? Yeah. But would I have been as happy with my choice? Hard to tell, but given my criteria I would lean towards no.</p>

<p>Choosing a college shouldn't be based on academic quality unless there is a clear distinction (choosing between your safety and reach school shouldn't even be a question), it should be based on which college will give you the best quality of life for you.</p>

<p>And now my rant is done. I'm outie for a week, spring break.</p>

79

<p>
[quote]
Good comments,
This is turning out to be a successful Thread. We have all sorts of people here. From junior members to professional posters that provide amusements for others. Perhaps, that is why no one is "moving."</p>

<p>But, the point was having a great history "proves nothing." Of course apparantly to some nothing "proves nothing."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So what would prove it to you then? The fact of the matter is, we live in a world where technology and innovation occurs at multiple places, making it extremely difficult to disentangle and figure out what is more important. Was Vint Cerf's development of TCP/IP really more important than the design of the original Arpanet, or more important than the development of the WWW protocols as run by the W3C? Is search (i.e. Google) really a more important use of the Internet than is email (pioneered by MIT graduate Ray Tomlinson - who invented the use of the "@" symbol)? Is the microprocessor really more important than the integrated circuit, given that the microprocessor is nothing more than a special kind of integrated circuit? Who "deserves" more credit for GPS - Parkinson or Getting? </p>

<p>Or let me ask you this. Who "deserves" more credit for Bob Metcalfe and Ethernet - Stanford (at which Metcalfe was a former member of the faculty), or MIT (at which Metcalfe was a student)? Remember your answer because now I'll ask you another question - who "deserves" more credit for Ron Rivest's public key cryptography - Stanford (where Rivest was a student), or MIT (where Rivest is now a full professor, and has been for decades)? I think a fair person would give some credit to both schools for both developments. {Of course, I suspect that certain people are going to somehow wheedle a way to give credit to Stanford for both, but no credit to MIT for either.}</p>

80

<p>
[quote]
Choosing a college shouldn't be based on academic quality unless there is a clear distinction (choosing between your safety and reach school shouldn't even be a question), it should be based on which college will give you the best quality of life for you.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well said. Actually I am accepted into all three of Stanford, Caltech, and MIT. As I approach the actual decision on May 1, that is going to to be my philosophy.</p>

<p>I think to argue which school is "better" in terms of the quality of engineering/science/whatnot is a moot point for prospective college students. I mean, if you are some educator or ranking-compiler that must rank MSC in some order, then perhaps there is some merit in arguing. </p>

<p>The fact of the matter is, for prospective college students (like me), we simply do not care that much about which school is "better." These three institutions are ALL leaders, ALL pioneers, and ALL innovators in different fields. Even if there actually exists a difference in quality, I can assure you that except for probably the top 1% of the admitted pool, most prospective college students do not have the technical acumen and aptitude to distinguish that difference anyway.</p>

<p>For college students, the important thing, I believe, is not which school churns out more patents -- but rather whether they enjoy the location, teaching style, living conditions, student body...etc.</p>

<p>But carry on, for those that really do want to prove a point. This is just a thought from a prospective college student that is currently seriously considering all three colleges.</p>