Most rigorious majors at MIT

Colleges and Universities A-Z Massachusetts Institute of Technology
21

<p>
[quote]
I'll only have taken Comp Sci AB. Although my teacher is super good, like pretty much everyone that stays in his class gets 5s, and I have one of the highest grade in the class without trying much, I am not sure if it will be enough for prep for 6.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Um...there are quite a few course 6 majors who come in with less preparation than that. There are NO CS prereqs for being a course 6 major. Don't be intimidated. :)</p>

<p>
[quote]
How is course 9?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I liked it. It was very flexible. If you want a more useful answer you'll have to ask a more specific question. :p</p>

22

<p>My D just joined Course 9 with sophomore standing second semester freshman year. She likes the fact that it is relatively small department with nearly unlimited resources. (They even have their own MRI system dedicated to neuroscience). Access to the professors is very easy and research is a requirement for the major. The new building is gorgeous and next to the Stata Center. (Great for lunch). I would not say Course 9 is an "easy" major but it is quite flexible. It is popular with premeds and those interested in medical research. It also offers a great full year exchange option with Cambridge University junior year. Double majoring Course 7 & 9 is possible but requires some planning. Check with Mollie about that option.</p>

23

<p>
[quote]
At MIT, if you say, or imply, that somebody's major is not rigorous, you are undermining a big part of their identity, and you are also undermining their status as part of the MIT community/culture.</p>

<p>This doesn't mean that people don't do it (unfortunately). But it means that, unlike at many other schools, them's fightin' words, and you should expect people to become frothingly angry (whether they express that anger to you or not) if you insult them in that way.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Alright, then at the risk of starting a conflagration, I will come right out and name a major that is unrigorous (at least, relative to most other majors at MIT), and that I think even those who are in the major would probably concede is relatively unrigorous: Management at the Sloan School is relatively unrigorous. I think even most Sloanies would have to agree.</p>

<p>So let's see. Is there anybody who would try to argue that Management really is just as rigorous as the other majors at MIT?</p>

24

<p>I believe that the implication that one's major is not rigorous and the implied insult that this engenders at MIT became a problem for my son, who was originally an 18C major (math with computer science). He was really good at it, but his heart wasn't in it, his <em>identity</em> wasn't in it (thanks for that image, jessiehl), and his true passion lay elsewhere outside the traditionally "respected" "rigorous" majors at MIT. I believe it caused him some non-trivial amount of angst, and it was only after taking a term off and taking some classes at a local college as a visiting student that he was able to feel confident enough to return to MIT and switch majors to Course IV (architecture).</p>

<p>Not that Architecture is a non-rigorous discipline, far from it! But the popular perception that if you're not Course 6, 8, 16, 18.... etc. you're not truly "entitled" to be at MIT somehow, well.... that's a dangerous mindset and it's one of the attitudinal things that I wish were different about what I've seen of the MIT community. </p>

<p>(PS: my kid is much happier now, and doing some pretty cool work, if I do say so myself.)
(And PPS: this is just my perception of what he experienced, so I may be off-base. If you know him you don't need to quote me to him. ;) )</p>

25

<p>How ironic that the issue of "rigor" is always tainted by own's biases. I was a math/physics major and used to believe engineering was unrigorous because engineers never had to work through a single mathematical proof. They just used algorithms without understanding them. Then I came to MIT as a grad student and realized that maybe it would help to know what you could do with all these tools and I had frankly no clue.</p>

<p>I don't think anybody walks around at MIT with a sign that says "slacker" because of the major they are in. If anything architecture (the oldest program in the US) and management (on par with Wharton as top program in the US) are very demanding and require plenty of work. You simply won't do well in the management program if you are not an excellent writer. Quite a few engineers taking classes at Sloan get lousy grades because they don't get the business logic or can't present their case clearly. Don't take a management class at MIT if you want to pad your GPA. Same thing with architecture. Even the intro. architectural drawing classes are intense. It's not that these students party all the time while other students work on psets. Many actually double major. The Econ program, by far the most quantitative program in the country is god, forbid, in the humanities. Who ever claimed that was a less rigorous program than even Course 6? What about linguistics? </p>

<p>Some majors at MIT have grueling labs, others involve more writing, others are very analytical. None are a cakewalk. Engineers constitute less than half of all graduates. They are no more or less deserving of their degree than any other MIT graduate.</p>

26

<p>
[quote]
Then I came to MIT as a grad student and realized that maybe it would help to know what you could do with all these tools and I had frankly no clue.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Grad student eh? Then allow me to continue the discussion below, as it seems that your cognition is framed by your grad experience. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I don't think anybody walks around at MIT with a sign that says "slacker" because of the major they are in

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, really? It is quite well known cultural feature that the Sloan MBA program considers itself to be completely set apart from the rest of MIT and that the Sloan MBA's don't really consider themselves to be truly part of MIT, but rather call the rest of MIT the "real" school. </p>

<p>
[quote]
If anything architecture (the oldest program in the US) and management (on par with Wharton as top program in the US) are very demanding and require plenty of work. You simply won't do well in the management program if you are not an excellent writer. Quite a few engineers taking classes at Sloan get lousy grades because they don't get the business logic or can't present their case clearly. Don't take a management class at MIT if you want to pad your GPA.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh really? That's strange because many engineering students do exactly that. </p>

<p>In fact, let me put it to you this way. Let me tell you about the LFM program, which is the dual MBA + SM (engineering) program run as a joint venture between the Sloan School and the School of Engineering. Trust me, I know a lot of LFM people, and I can't think of a single LFM student who actually got higher grades in their engineering portion of the program than in their Sloan portion. Not one. In fact, I know one woman who came into LFM who had already earned a PhD in EE from Stanford and had published about 15 academic papers or conference presentations before joining LFM. Even she ended up with worse grades in her engineering coursework than in her Sloan coursework. </p>

<p>I think the key to understanding what is happening is to understand what is meant by a 'lousy' grade at Sloan. At Sloan, it's almost impossible to get anything below a C, and in most cases, impossible to get anything below a B. But that's certainly not true in engineering. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Same thing with architecture. Even the intro. architectural drawing classes are intense. It's not that these students party all the time while other students work on psets. Many actually double major. The Econ program, by far the most quantitative program in the country is god, forbid, in the humanities. Who ever claimed that was a less rigorous program than even Course 6? What about linguistics?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm not talking about any of those majors. I am talking specifically about Sloan management. </p>

<p>Let me tell you another story. I know several MIT graduates who have never taken calculus before in their life. Not even once. Ridiculous you say? Not really - not when you consider the fact that they are *Sloan MBA's. * The fact is, you don't actually need to know a lot of math - and you certainly don't need to know calculus - to get into and complete the Sloan MBA program. Granted, that knowledge certainly helps, but you don't actually NEED it. </p>

<p>Note, I'm not trying to single out Sloan, for I don't think that Sloan is any worse in this regard than any other business school. Frankly, that's just how business schools are - they are (sadly) widely noted for a lack of intellectual rigor. For example, I don't think Harvard Business School is any better - honestly, how do you think George Bush was able to complete his MBA from HBS back in the wayward days of his youth when he has freely admitted that he was little more than a drunk slacker? In fact, I would argue that Sloan is almost certainly better than most other business schools in that regard, but that still hardly makes Sloan comparable in rigor to, say, the MIT School of Engineering. Trust me, LFM students don't go around taking 'extra' engineering coursework. If anything, they try to minimize the engineering coursework that they have to take.</p>

27

<p>^Well then in that case, let's consider Yale a slacker school too. How was Bush able to complete his 4 years at Yale and pass when he was, again, "little more than drunk slacker"? I think one can go to business school and work REALLY hard, and will probably come out above someone who slacked off, even if it's simply in the business skills acquired.</p>

28

<p>La Montagne: I wouldn't consider Bush an example of a success. His success was in a large part through his connections. He is the type of person who would fall at the bottom of every bell curve at MIT. </p>

<p>Part of the reason some majors are considered extremely rigorous is the presence of a bell curve. Many classes are indeed curved, and you will directly be competing with the IMO gold medalists, Putnam winners, genius hackers, etc. This isn't to say that any major (except sloan perhaps) is not damn hard. </p>

<p>When a subject has been developed enough that you can test proficiency in a quantitative manner, then you can set the bar at an insane level. Most people would consider this inhuman, but the problem at MIT (and universities like Caltech obviously) is that you regularly have classmates that supercede the most insane expectations and then some. In fact, its usually good when the class average is between a 50 and 70, because the spread of the distribution lets people see very clearly where they fall.</p>

29

<p>
[quote]
^Well then in that case, let's consider Yale a slacker school too. How was Bush able to complete his 4 years at Yale and pass when he was, again, "little more than drunk slacker"?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, as a matter of fact, frankly, Yale too is not a particularly hard school to graduate from. I don't think is surprising. Let's face it. It's pretty hard to actually flunk out of Yale. As long as you do minimal work, you're going to graduate. Probably not with top grades, but you will graduate.</p>

<p>But that's not true at MIT. Flunking out is a distinct possibility.</p>

30

<p>
[quote]
This isn't to say that any major (except sloan perhaps) is not damn hard.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>To be fair regarding Sloan, let me repeat one of my own quotes that I have stated on another thread: </p>

<p>*Note, that's not a knock on MIT or on the Sloan School; in fact, I happen to think that [Sloan's relative lack of rigor] is one of MIT's greatest features. Those students who can't or don't want to put up with the supremely high levels of rigor of an engineering or a science major can still pick up a degree from MIT through the Sloan School - and a highly marketable degree at that. In fact, a Sloan management bachelor's is arguably more marketable than most of the technical bachelor's degrees you can get from MIT. If anything, I think MIT should offer more programs like the Sloan program. *</p>

31

<p>
[quote]
In fact, let me put it to you this way. Let me tell you about the LFM program, which is the dual MBA + SM (engineering) program run as a joint venture between the Sloan School and the School of Engineering. Trust me, I know a lot of LFM people, and I can't think of a single LFM student who actually got higher grades in their engineering portion of the program than in their Sloan portion. Not one. In fact, I know one woman who came into LFM who had already earned a PhD in EE from Stanford and had published about 15 academic papers or conference presentations before joining LFM. Even she ended up with worse grades in her engineering coursework than in her Sloan coursework.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Now that I think about it more, I think the contrast is even more stark than I realized.</p>

<p>Allow me to explicate. Everybody who enters LFM must have a technical undergrad degree of some kind, with over 90% of the students having an engineering degree (with the rest having degrees in physics, chemistry, or some other natural science). Many LFM students will already have master's degrees in a technical subject (almost always in engineering), and a few will come in with technical PhD's. Yet almost none of them will have degrees in business or related subjects (i.e. economics, sociology, psychology, etc.) For example, last year, I think one LFM student out of a total of 48 had an undergrad business degree, and this person got it as part of a double with an undergrad engineering degree. Most LFM cohorts will have nobody that has an undergrad business or related degree.</p>

<p>Hence, the upshot is that LFM students have a far far heavier technical background than a business background. Despite this, LFM students still tend to get lower grades in their engineering portion of LFM than they will in their MBA portion. I think that emphatically demonstrates just how much easier the Sloan School is compared to the School of Engineering. These LFM students ain't no scrubs when it comes to engineering; these guys are pretty good. Yet I know quite a few who are quite happy that they are able to count Sloan classes as part of their overall MIT GPA and, heck, won't even mention their engineering-specific GPA on their LFM resume. In fact, some of them need their Sloan grades to be factored in to have an overall GPA that is high enough for them to graduate (you need a 3.5/5 to graduate from LFM, and trust me, without Sloan classes, some LFM students wouldn't make that cutoff).</p>

32

<p>
[quote]
It's what you, the student, put into a program that makes it challenging (or not).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I very much disagree - it's a function of how the major is taught and how you learn. 'Rigorous' has a very specific meaning - for instance our math curriculum is not rigorous, despite it being one of the best. That is why I am a math major.</p>

33

<p>"For example, last year, I think one LFM student out of a total of 48 had an undergrad business degree, and this person got it as part of a double with an undergrad engineering degree. Most LFM cohorts will have nobody that has an undergrad business or related degree."</p>

<p>To be fair, I think the relative non-management strengths of LFMs are endogenized in the LFM course designs and assessments.
Also, it simply doesn't make sense to discourage 30-some year old engineers with low grades in a non-technical course.</p>

34

<p>How doable is a course 7+20 double major? I don't think that I could decide between the two....</p>

35

<p>look up the requirements for each + 17 GIRs and given that you can only take 4 full classes each semester of freshmen year ( unless you get sophomore standing) - the GIRs you got credit for through AP and what not
can you fit the classes in your 4 years?
the normal load is 4 classes
many people take 5
but 6 is on the extreme side.
A friend of mine is doing 7+10 and minor in econ. she manages her time really really really well ( she always did) and still get decent amount of sleep and made cheese cake during CPW from 2 to 4 AM. She is taking 6 classes this semester. It depends on what classes you take, too and how much work you can handle. Some people are not so happy nor sleeping much with just 4 classes.</p>

36

<p>I heard some geniuses take 8 to 9 classes. Is this true?</p>

37

<p>I'm really confused about majoring in two courses still. How many of the credits can go towards both degrees if they are part of the same course requirements? Does all of your Hass still go towards both degrees? (Sorry, I realize that all of this information is probably on this site somewhere)</p>

38

<p>The double major just became a lot easier to do now. Check the recent MIT newspaper article on the "dual major" option.</p>

39

<p>(<em>reads the Tech</em>)</p>

<p>This is cool!</p>

40

<p>
[quote]
The double major just became a lot easier to do now. Check the recent MIT newspaper article on the "dual major" option.

[/quote]

Laaaaame.</p>

<p>The only cool thing about double-majoring was that I got two degrees at graduation. Also that I get to list myself as "molliebatmit, SB, SB" any time I need to list my degrees.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I heard some geniuses take 8 to 9 classes. Is this true?

[/quote]

Yup.</p>