<p>I know that when people think of MIT they think of engineers, scientists, and even businessmen, but as a student with a strong interest in politics, I want to know how good is MIT's political science program?</p>
<p>My guess is that everyone thinks that since MIT is for engineers, their poli sci must suck, but I would say that their engineering department is just really strong, while their political science isn't as good. It might still be over UC whatever's level, but under harvard/princeton, etc. </p>
<p>so basically i don't know and I'm wasting your time</p>
<p>It is a top 10 program. As you might expect, it is known particularly for its strength in quantitative political science.</p>
<p>@Oscular: while this is true, it depends what context you are coming from. Collegealum is right, MIT's poli sci program is actually very impressive and well-known. So if you tell some random person that you study poli sci at MIT, they will probably have the reaction you described. But if you tell a potential employer, or graduate school, or someone within the field, they would be aware of MIT's program and know that it is very good. Those people have presumable long since gotten over their surprise at discovering that MIT produces good political scientists as well as regular scientists and engineers. =)</p>
<p>I think people would be more impressed by the MIT undergrad degree than a Harvard degree even for poli sci, at least for undergraduate studies. MIT grads have more of a reputation for intelligence than Harvard's, at least in terms of your average graduate. If you join a political campaign or something and your an MIT undergrad, people will act as if you just got finished building a rocket ship or something. You will stand out. If you're talking grad school, then Harvard's graduates have a better reputation in general. But for undergrad, it's all about the environment you prefer. </p>
<p>BTW, one of the two undergrad poli sci majors I knew is a professor at one of the UC universities. I don't know what the other one went on to do.</p>
<p>Joining a political campaign (or even starting one), regardless of the institution, could actually DECREASE the intelligence and prestige others attribute to you. (if you're talking to someone who majored in math, science, or engineering) If it's a humanities/social science/something else major, you're right. They won't have any concept of what it takes to build a rocket and immediately consider the two "accomplishments" to have equal significance. Where do these general reputations come from whether you went to MIT or Harvard for political science? That doesn't say anything about the person. Instead of immediately forming an opinion, wouldn't it be a better idea to talk to the person first?</p>
<p>No, I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I'm saying that an MIT undergrad, even a poli sci. major, would be characterized as "the rocket scientist" if they joined a political campaign because of MIT's reputation. So the fact that Harvard's political science department is more highly ranked would not relevant to how you would be received. It's not like the difference between Harvard and Columbia, where Harvard is the same type of school only stronger; MIT elicits a totally different reaction, especially from non-technical people. Ultimately, people will be judged by how good they actually are, but the question I am addressing is how the degree will be received.</p>
<p>I see what you're saying, but why is 'how the degree will be received' important? If someone actually has to worry about that while interviewing for a job or filling out grad school applications, then it seems like they might be working for the wrong people. (or going to the wrong grad school) (to a point, obviously a transcript from a community college doesn't really compare)</p>
<p>The way the degree is perceived is important because MIT grads rarely apply for easy-to-get jobs. When I applied to grad school, I felt that my MIT degree was a huge asset to me -- I was certainly qualified for the programs to which I was applying, but so were a lot of other people. I was glad to have every advantage I could take.</p>
<p>mollie: where did you go for grad school?</p>
<p>I’m at Harvard – I’m a third-year PhD student in developmental neurobiology.</p>
<p>My poli sci major friend here has had many unique opportunities presented to her, including working for Congress and meeting the Clintons.</p>
<p>My mother is an expert on hiring practices (she has a Ph. D in Industrial/Organizational Psychology and works as a hiring consultant). When I asked her one day, she basically told me that your degree makes a much tinier difference than you’d think in getting a job.</p>
<p>It may impress the average person if you told them you had a degree from MIT, but everyone at top companies will have met several people from MIT-caliber institutes who were idiots. They usually have some quite sophisticated processes for directly assessing talent, and you can’t game that with prestige. Even if there’s nothing but an interview, any experienced interviewer will be actively compensating for the effect of the MIT degree on their psyche. I.e.: if the interview ends and they only have a slightly warm feeling about you, they’ll say to themselves “I’m only feeling that way because of his degree.” and recommend turning you down.</p>
<p>Of course, that’s just your first job out of college. Your performance at your first job will matter far more for subsequent interviews (and your college GPA will be nil).</p>
<p>AurakDraconian: that’s an interesting perspective…hmm…</p>
<p>While AurakDraconian is right about the effect of any degree at the interview, I think that is largely true of one’s entire CV as a whole. I’ve done a fair bit of hiring, and from the interview on, the CV just isn’t that important. As he says, I have my own ways of assessing talent. However, the function of the CV is not to get you employed, but to get you the interview, that is to say, get you the possibility to get employed. While I do not much consider the quality of the institution at the interview, I definitely do consider it when deciding who to interview. Only a tiny percentage of applications get to the point where the institution no longer matters.</p>
<p>^I think this is exactly the point – you don’t rely on your background to get you the job, you rely on it to get the interview. That’s not a trivial thing.</p>
<p>Your post should be taken to heart by all readers. As an MIT grad with a BS in Politics and Economics (which it was once called, not political science), plus having worked as an outside recruiter for Fortune 500 companies (headhunter), I can attest that an MIT degree is the Golden Key. It does not get one the position but it sure does open the door for a serious interview. I, and others like me, were never refused an interview…even if there was no opening at the time ! Never asked for a transcript, GPA, class standing, etc. either. All we ever heard was “Come in. I want to talk with you.” They already know you’re exceptionally smart and have dogged determination (you graduated, right ?). The interview becomes whether you’ll “fit” on first job interviews. Later, your work experience becomes important…but the Golden Key still opens that door.</p>