Olin vs. MIT

College Majors Engineering Majors
21

<p>I disagree. There are many other valuable undergraduate experiences that you can get at MIT that you can not get at Olin. The MIT student body is much bigger so there are more diverse groups to interact with. I don't know too much about Olin, but I bet there are more engineering societies, organization, clubs, sports, and frats at MIT. There are larger and more diverse parties and events on campus. A larger alumni network. There are more inspirational speakers coming to MIT. Although MIT may have larger class sizes, I would expect them to offer a larger selection of classes. MIT's undergraduate and graduate education are simply amazing. These are just various things off the top of my head, and I can surely come up with much more if I do some more research. The undergraduate experience is much more than small class sizes and more attention to students.</p>

<p>I don't know what all this talk about MIT's focus not being on undergraduate education means. An MIT undergraduate education and experience is just as good, if not better than any engineering institution in the world.</p>

22

<p>nogardder, if we extend your logic then Michigan, Purdue, Penn State, and Berkeley to name a few, would offer even more diverse interactions, engineering societies, clubs, sports, frats etc... and hence, make for a richer undergrad environment than that which exists at MIT. I'm not sure a school with 500 frats and sports clubs offers a richer milieu than one with 5. </p>

<p>I think few people would be foolish enough to deprecate the MIT experience. Rather, I think the point is that Olin and MIT represent two different cultures. Some will prefer one to the other; others, the reverse. I think it was mollieb who wrote something to the effect: a student should visit both and then determine which "fits" better.</p>

23

<p>"MIT is focused on graduate education - if you want the best graduate education go there. If you want the best undergraduate education go to Olin."</p>

<p>I was simply referring to dr_reynolds comments above, which I believe is completely untrue.</p>

24

<p>The point I was trying to make earlier was that you can get a graduate-level education at MIT while an undergrad. I think it would be more accurate to say that the focus at MIT is education in general, and nobody really cares whether you're an undergrad or a grad student, just that you're a person who's psyched about your particular corner of academia.</p>

<p>As for size, I think MIT is just big enough, but not too big. But other people might prefer a bigger or smaller environment, and more power to them. :)</p>

25

<p>Let me reiterate a previous point - I am not saying MIT is a bad place. It is excellent. But their focus is on research not education. Professors there are not going to get tenure by being great teachers - they get tenure by doing lots of research and bringing in a lot of money. There's nothing wrong with this - but please don't be so nieve to think that MIT is centered around undergradute education. MIT is a world leader because of the research they do, their selectivity (which I believe is about the same as Olin) and the internationally renowned (for their research) faculty.</p>

<p>I believe that the best places to go for undergraduate education are those institutions that focus singularly on that task. This is not saying that others are "bad", for in fact the MITs, Michigans and Stanfords are all excellent. But there's something special about places like Olin and Rose-Hulman. There's something amazing that can happen when you bring in great faculty who dedicate their lives towards teaching students. This is why I believe these places are superior.</p>

<p>Are you missing out on certain experiences when you go to places like these? Yes. If you feel like big time sports, hundreds of clubs and other activities are critical then you need to consider bigger schools. But I always urge future engineering students to at least consider schools that will focus on their education.</p>

26

<p>And my point is that MIT will provide one of the best engineering educations in the world, regardless of whether their focus is on research or education. I don't think it is worth the sacrifice of more diverse clubs, organizations, sports, engineering competitions, alumni and social networks, undergraduate student networks, graduate level research as an undergrad, greater course selection, graduate courses for undergrads, more developed internship programs, diverse interdisciplinary learning, name recognition, etc. Of course, you can nitpick and come up with something about every example I've listed and say it's not necessarily a good thing, but the bottom line is, you sacrifice a lot for a focus on education, which may or may not be better than the education you get at MIT.</p>

27

<p>No doubt, some will agree with you, nogardder, and choose MIT. Others will disagree and choose a place like Olin. I think at the end of the day, after all the lists and matrices are created, I believe people will draw on the visceral to find the elusive, intangible quality called "fit".</p>

28

<p>nogardder,</p>

<pre><code> Yes, MIT does provide one of the best engineering educations in the world - I've been saying this all along. Almost all of those things you point out are at Olin as well. As heydad said, "fit" certainly is important. I don't think one sacrifices nearly as much as you are suggesting when one goes to Olin but there definately are some sacrifices.
</code></pre>

29

<p>A couple of points:</p>

<p>If name recognition and network were all that mattered, no new scools would ever have oppened. MIT suffered from that too I am sure when it was brand new.
This arguement that because one school has x, y, and z makes it one school better for everybody is sort of ridiculus. If everybody actually felt one was the only way to go students would never apply to other schools to begin with. I think one must look at why Olin was started and what their mission has been since its beginning. It was in answer to a National Science Foundation study that questioned the setup of traditional engineering education in the US. It wasn't set up to be MIT or anyplace else.
If you read their history they had several thousand professors apply for the handful of teaching positions which by the way have no tenure. So they must of thought the concept had merit. Several of the profs came from MIT and many won teaching awards. (As an aside a friend who went to MIT and works for NASA has said the Olin undergrads are amazing at the way they approach and solve probems).
Olin is a work in progress, developing a new curriculum as it goes along. Since it is the only one of its kind it is sort of of hard to compare it to a another place. Suffice it to say in 6 years they have gotten to a point of having 1060 applicants of whom only 100 will be offered admissions for 75 slots. The stats etc are as good as anywhere else so they do have a market out there.
For these people obviously a network is not important. They feel they will be the new network and of course being more entepeneurial feel they do not need a network. They are breaking new ground and may view a network as an unnecessary crutch for their success.
As far as research, like Mudd where undergrads do amazing research and have opportunities that many would feel are greater because there are no graduate students, Olin profs do reserach and Olin students have research opportunities. A school does not necessarily have to have linear accelerator class facilities to provide research opportunities.
Again, nobody here said MIT is bad (although one might like to investigate why the prsident is worried about the number of unhappy undergrads there). Each student must dig way beneath name recognition and all the hype of any school and find the one that fits his/her needs and provides him/her the atmosphere that is conducive to reaching his/her dreams.
MIT vs Olin. That's kind of like Amherst versus Harvard. Both good but different from one another.</p>

30

<p>"MIT is focused on graduate education - if you want the best graduate education go there. If you want the best undergraduate education go to Olin."</p>

<p>That still does not make your statement above true. Like you said, it depends on the student and "fit". If I had attended Olin instead, I believe my education would have suffered.</p>

31

<p>nogardder,</p>

<pre><code> We'll never know what would have happened had you had the chance to go to Olin. But I doubt your education would have suffered.
</code></pre>

32

<p>I just returned from lunch with a current MIT grad student who also went there undergrad.(He likes it) His quote: "MIT is a $2 billion a year business of which undergraduate tuition makes up about $110 million. Where do you think the focus is? Unfortunately, too many people have started to believe the MIT hype machine and there are way too many undergrads who come here thinking they are something special just because they are here and a fair number who have come for the wrong reasons. There are many places to get just as good or better undergrad education."</p>

<p>Fit is important and there is no one best place.</p>

33

<p>oldolddad, it'd be interesting to hear your friend's thoughts on the "wrong" reasons for attending MIT. I can imagine some students being there purely for the prestige when they would probably be better off in a smaller, more personal environment or others who might miss things like the "Big Game", marching bands etc. which MIT, I believe, does not have. </p>

<p>As I've written and as Dr. Reynolds has echoed, it all comes down to what a person wants post high school: "big game" experience would suggest Notre Dame, Purdue, USC, Texas; smaller, teaching focused places = Olin, Rose Hulman and Harvey Mudd.</p>

34

<p>MIT does have a marching band. :) Not that it diminishes your point.</p>

<p>For what it's worth, I think a lot of people apply to MIT for the wrong reasons. I don't think a lot of people attend for those reasons -- and the small minority of students who attend for the prestige are usually those who are unhappy at MIT.</p>

35

<p>Thanks mollie, there's MUCH I do not know about MIT (had no clue they had a marching band! hmmm...that changes the picture completely).</p>

<p>If I'm understanding you correctly, would you say that most students who attend MIT are there for the "right" reasons? This would stand in contrast to OODad's friend who believes there are a "fair number" who are there for the "wrong" reasons.</p>

<p>I know Marilee Jones and the admissions committee work awfully hard to find the "best matches" and I'd bet by and large, they are on the mark with their calls.</p>

36

<p>dr_reynolds,</p>

<p>Like you said, every student is different. I can not function as well academically at a smaller school, which will cause my education to suffer. I am not a good "fit" for a small school like Olin.</p>

37

<p>Yes, I think most students are at MIT for the right reasons. (Or they've convinced themselves they're there for the right reasons -- and really, past a certain point, those are kind of the same thing.)</p>

38

<p>Most students at MIT are there for the right reasons. At times, some may not think that they're up for the challenge and question themselves, but the great advisers and professors will definitely help you achieve your goals. I have first hand experience. If any prospective students have any questions about MIT, feel free to message me.</p>

39

<p>from a outsider point of view, I didn't apply to any of those 2 schools. I'd say if I was offered admission to both, I prefer MIT. Simply of reputations & history.</p>

40

<p>OldOldDad, Very Very Close. </p>

<p>Olin was actually founded as a reply to ABET and their realization that no one has changed engineering education in a long long time. The story is the trustee of the Olin foundation was reading through grant requests and getting more frustrated that no one was innovating, and his wife asked "why dont you just found your own G. D. college" and so he did. And here we are. </p>

<p>And Yes, there is no tenure here, only 5 year contracts. We have amazing faculty. You know the MIT museum, how it says Gill Pratt of MIT everywhere? Well I need to take some sticky labels, he's here now. We had professors leaving tenured positions to teach here, applying at something like 100 applicants for every spot (its something like that). Olin is a bit like jumping into the deep end for every one. No one came here without risk. The Olin you start with is not The Olin you finish with. </p>

<p>We also do a lot of research, we have students getting published at an amazing rate for such a small place. I had my first paper published after my freshman year.</p>

<p>And I'd like to say we have a network, its just not huge. However, we are making a network. We have Alums, who know that its hard to make connections when your school is "O.. who?" But at the same time you have to be willing to say "Hi My name is /ref {name} and I go to Olin College" then "Oh, you dont know what Olin is, let me tell you" and tell people about it. </p>

<p>You learn not to take no for an answer. "Oh, I'm sorry you're college isn't accredited, you cant do this" Oh, wannna make a bet? Send off the little letter that explains our status and things have a chance of getting better. Now that we are accredited though that problem went away. </p>

<p>An Olin education is very different. You learn how to make connections, and not rely on those handed to you, nor on a name. I didn't come to Olin for a name, I turned down many schools with much bigger names, trust me. I came to Olin to found a college, but more so for the amazing people I'd spend the next four years of my life with, and have ties with for life. </p>

<p>Olin is Olin. Take it or leave it. Just don't put my little school down on my time.</p>