<p>It has become increasingly evident to me that MIT is one of the best institutions in the world for both mathematics and the sciences and humanities and the social sciences. The Institute is home to Linguist and leading intellectual Noam Chomsky, is famed economist Robert Shiller's alma mater, has an excellent business schools, and arguably the best graduate-level economics program in the nation. In fact, those who know the school well know that MIT excels in many of the "soft subjects", often by making a rigorous science out of them. This begs the question, however, of why most MIT undergraduates choose to study sciences and not, say, philosophy or economics. Obviously, MIT is known first and foremost for its excellence in the STEM field, but given its excellence in other subjects, why do students choose to stick with more hard, quantitative subjects? Is it because MIT only accepts students who distinguished themselves in science or math in high school, and as a result, will likely continue down that path of academia in college? Or perhaps because there is a stigma of some majors being too easy? I realize this is hard, probably impossible, to definitively answer, but I am looking for some insight as to why MIT remains known for the STEM subjects, when those who know the school, know it is much like Stanford in that it excels in most, if not all, realms of academics.</p>
<p>This isn’t a difficult question to answer - the undergraduate and graduate portions of MIT attract different kinds of students. The former tends to attract more of the typical STEM students, the latter not quite as much. The prestige of grad programs is almost completely removed from that of undergrad programs.</p>
<p>By the way, Chomsky has long been retired from MIT, and there are many other “stars” to pay attention to now. :)</p>
<p>There are also the General Institute Requirements, which include two semesters of calculus, two semesters of physics, a semester of chemistry, a semester of biology, two restricted math/science electives, and a lab class. A lot of prospective students interested in the social sciences aren’t exactly enthused about having to take so much college-level science. </p>
<p>At any rate, majors in Management and Economics are actually fairly popular – about 10% of MIT class last year received a degree in one or the other. Interestingly, the Management major was about twice as popular when I was at MIT (100 degrees per year vs. 50), which was prior to the recession. Some of the major-choice decision is clearly being driven by what students believe will be a marketable degree.</p>
<p>Mollie,</p>
<p>Is there somewhere on MIT’s website that shows the breakdown of what percentage of students have a particular major? I’d be curious about minors, too.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes and yes.</p>
<p>I suspect that the lack of social science majors has more to do with the culture of MIT and who the admissions office accepts than the GIRs. Most of the GIRs [the 2 semesters of math, the 2 REST subjects, and the lab] would be directly relevant to the social sciences and the 4 other classes isn’t much more than other schools. Of course many social science majors at other schools might not be as quantitatively inclined but a serious student of the social sciences will use a lot of maths and stats.</p>
<p>
Yes! Almost everything one could ever hope for is here: [Enrollment</a> & Degree Statistics: MIT Office of the Registrar](<a href=“Statistics & Reports | MIT Registrar”>Statistics & Reports | MIT Registrar)</p>
<p>They don’t have statistics on minors, and I don’t know that I’ve ever seen them concatenated somewhere. And the stats on double-majors are kind of annoying, because they list the second department, but not the first. (Since you declare a major at the end of freshman year, but can’t declare a second major until first semester of junior year, there’s a difference between your primary, original major and the second major. And there are sometimes incentives for declaring one department at the outset, so the double-major stats don’t necessarily reflect the true number of doubles in a given department.)</p>
<p>iceui2 remains the only person I’ve ever met that seems to think that some majors at MIT are easy.</p>
<p>To add content: a lot of my friends who wanted to major in something other than science or engineering cringed when they heard about the GIRs. I wouldn’t be surprised if someone who was really interested in linguistics or economics preferred a school that wouldn’t make them take biology and two semesters of physics and let them dive right into their major instead.</p>
<p>I’ve talked to several people who have said that the minimum requirements for the math are ridiculously light. The only requirements for the general math major are the CI-M requirements, a differential equations class, a class covering linear algebra, and 7 other math classes. Not that most math majors take easy classes but the potential certainly seems there. That probably isn’t what people are talking about when they talk about easy majors though.</p>
<p>Maybe for a linguistics major the GIRs are more of an issue but for an economics major 18.01, 18.02, 18.03, 14.30, 14.33 which covers the calculus, REST, and lab requirements will all be directly relevant to the major. That leaves 4 science GIRs which is probably 2 more than other schools. But the humanities requirements are much less than at other schools which should more than balance things out. Admittedly, there are a decent amount of econ majors at MIT so perhaps prospective econ majors aren’t scared away. There are only about 5 political science majors per year though and I think they will only be slightly more impacted by the GIRs than econ majors so I’m not sure why there are so few of those.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is vastly exaggerated. There is actually a requirement for 8 classes in adition to the GIRs, diff. equations and linear algebra of which 6 have to be advanced classes. No way to take mostly easy classes. </p>
<p>
That is also incorrect. The eight humanities requirements are more than at most schools. </p>
<p>There is no doubt that humanities majors without a strong quantitative background and at least a passing interest in science will be struggling at MIT. Political science/econ majors who can manage multi-variable calculus and physics with calc. are few and far between. On the other hand, if you have the skills, you will definitely stand out from your peers at other schools on graduation.</p>
<p>I’m not sure to what extent it’s possible to take 7 easy math classes beyond differential equations and linear algebra [linear algebra counts as one of the 8] but not requiring any sort of analysis nor abstract algebra is really strange for a math major.</p>
<p>While the total number of HASS classes is more than at other schools the requirement is very flexible. A social science major would be able to count some of their major classes towards the requirement as well and would presumably be interested in taking classes in related fields which would mean practically speaking the requirement isn’t a big deal because of how flexible it is. Given how widely used techniques involving multivariable calc are in the social sciences any serious student would know them. Certainly, any graduate student in either discipline should know know them. In fact, most econ grad schools expect a lot more math than that. Real analysis in particular is highly recommended. Calculus based physics skills may be more rare among social science majors because physics has much less application than math but given the required math proficiency it shouldn’t be a huge issue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That would not be possible. The analysis classes are the least advanced classes after diff. equations and linear algebra. Don’t confuse flexibility and difficulty. Math is a very flexible major at MIT but hardly easy. If anything the average level in the department is very high as MIT has historically attracted some of the best math talent from all over the world. While classes are not curved per se, the test difficulty is designed in such a way as to stretch even the most gifted. Most advanced classes involve complex proofs. I know quite a few students who started out thinking they would major in math to quickly transfer to computer science and engineering as the difficulty rose. </p>
<p>Comparing the math level required from grad students in a top economics department has little to do with the average requirements in undergraduate programs. I would challenge you to find any other undergrad econ. program in the US with the same quantitative requirements. If you intend to go on to grad school, then the MIT econ. program is clearly one of the best. If not, you will find yourself way over your head very quickly.</p>
<p>Chicago’s econ program requires 5 quarters of math and 1 quarter of statistics. Chicago also requires 4 quarters of sciences to graduate. Those 10 quarters of science classes are a slightly higher percentage of the credits required to graduate than 7 semesters of STEM classes required to graduate from MIT with an econ degree [1 of the REST classes and the lab would be fulfilled by econ classes]. Chicago’s econ program has hundreds of majors per year very few of which go to graduate school so it’s not like those requirements are only for those going to econ grad school.</p>
<p>I’m not sure how relevant this is, but part of the thing may be that a lot of mathematics students choose to have another major, and thus there’s a lot of flexibility to accommodate various career paths?</p>
<p>A quick glance has me believe there are various ways to get some kind of mathematics degree at MIT, and the “theoretical mathematics” one does require the standard analysis and algebra. Some others don’t list those as required. It is possible that there are classes in applied disciplines introducing the relevant background as they go. For instance I could see a physics class introducing some group theory as they go along, but not spending all the time in the world on general classification theorems for finite groups.</p>
<p>I think the real question is what a mathematics degree that does not require analysis or algebra formally is meant to accomplish. I for one don’t need to see a theoretical physics major tack on a mathematics degree to believe there’s a decent chance he or she has seen some serious math.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is it correct that a student in Economics/management, as a minimum, has to take 4 core courses in B/C/P such as 3.091, 8.01, 8.011, 7.012 in addition to those listed by UMTYMP? Only 8.01 may be credited by a 5 in AP PHYS.</p>
<p>All students at MIT have to take the GIRs, which include a semester of chemistry (3.091/5.111/5.112), a semester of biology (7.012/3/4), two semesters of calculus (18.01 and 18.02 or variants thereof), and two semesters of physics (8.01 and 8.02 or variants thereof). There are placement tests for chemistry and biology, a 4 or 5 on AP Calculus gets you credit for 18.01, and a 5 on AP Physics C gets you credit for 8.01.</p>
<p>Do current MIT students think that GIRs are fundamental and necessary to an MIT education? Like I said before, a rigorous study of the social sciences is very quantitative and is not for the mathematically faint of heart. Wouldn’t the GIRs just turn off some excellent students who intend to focus on applied mathematics in the study of social sciences? On a graduate level, MIT is untouchable in that field, so shouldn’t the institution do something greater to attract those students at an undergraduate level? I know Northwestern has a competitive program called “Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences” and Dartmouth has a major in “Mathematical Social Sciences”.</p>
<p>The issue of the GIRs has been debated by faculty and the administration for decades with some minor changes over the years, mostly in the area of the humanities. In terms of the science GIRs, while there has been some suggestions for their elimination (most frequently chem and bio), most such proposals were rejected. These classes are prerequisites for a number of majors and taking them out of the GIRs would force departments to integrate these classes into their programs. It would also force students to choose their majors freshman year which is against the philosophy of MIT which encourages exploration. Most importantly, it would largely eliminate the shared freshman experience which is one the most unique features of an MIT undergraduate education. My D was no physics fan but going through the 8.01/8.02 sequence with all her friends made the experience much more bearable. Finally, MIT prides itself on providing its students with a broad scientific background essential to the understanding of any increasingly complex environment. Because of these various factors, combined with the fact that very few MIT students are pure HASS majors (most HASS majors are double majors in a science or engineering field), it is unlikely the current approach will change. There has actually been discussions about expanding the GIRs to include at least one computer science or introductory engineering class.</p>
<p>I completely agree with the shared freshman experience and a strong background in the sciences, but MIT has in the past boasted of its superb economics and linguistics departments available to undergrads. Certainly, this is true. What I can’t get past is the fact that they are not attracting students that would shine in those departments simply because a) those students weren’t outstanding in the maths or sciences as high schoolers or b) they don’t want to go through the grind of taking the extremely intense GIR science courses. Nothing wrong with the GIRs, but how is the school supposed to attract the brightest minds with various academic interests if it’s not marketable to a large proportion of high school students? Yes, MIT is based on European polytechnic universities, but MIT can also attract many students who may not distinguish themselves in the maths and sciences that could still bring a lot to campus and succeed in majors such as economics, urban planning and anthropology. These are quant majors that can get difficult but how many students who have won “Distinguished Mathematician” awards in high school are looking for careers in urban planning? I venture to say not many. If by decreasing the intensity of GIRs they are attracting mathematically-inclined minds that would otherwise shy away from the intense MIT curriculum, would that not be a winning situation for the school?</p>
<p>MIT is getting more than enough mathematically inclined minds and I seriously doubt any oustanding math students would be deterred from applying because they have to take a few science classes. As far as admitting students who can’t handle reasonably advanced mathematics, that is not simply compatible with its core mission. Even modern economics is highly quantitative (n large part because of the contribution of MIT to the field) and no top graduate school will admit students in their PhD programs without a strong mathematics background. It is precisely the fact that ALL students at MIT have gone through a rigorous math and science training that makes the degree so appealing to employers and graduate schools. There are are no “light” majors at MIT and there will never be. For those who can’t handle the rigor of MIT there is always Harvard!</p>