<p>This really helped to seal the deal for me on picking MIT because the only other schools I'm seriously looking at are Rice and Harvard. Rice is too close to home and Harvard, well - read on.</p>
<p>ah, yes, i saw that article this morning too. i'm not entirely sure if such a small percentage difference means much in concrete happiness terms, or rather, i have great faith in the ability of a single person to have an atypical experience if they wish. the administration appears to be taking it seriously, at least.</p>
<p>if that swings it for you, cool. me, i said hell, if i'm going to boston, of course i'm going to MIT. then i just had to argue myself out of columbia and harvey mudd...<em>sigh</em></p>
<p>Not to sound churlish, but I have to question how serious this dissatisfaction at Harvard really is. After all, if Harvard students were REALLY dissatisfied, then rather than saying so in a poll, they would simply transfer to some other school. The fact that they aren't doing that should tell you something. They may say that they're dissatisfied, but they're voting with their feet by staying. So, honestly, how bad could it be?</p>
<p>and even if Harvard students are unhappy, do we know that MIT students are happier?</p>
<p>have you seen the pictures on their advertisements? they are ALL smiling - that should be proof enough, texas137.</p>
<p>Ha, true enough, hikkifan!</p>
<p>Sakky:</p>
<p>Do you want to go to a school that's "Not horrible"?</p>
<p>Or "not bad enough to make us want to leave"?</p>
<p>Plus there's the whole It's-Harvard thing. That's enough, I think, to convince a lot of people to want to stay, no matter what it may actually be like. That and transferring not being an option for some (maybe students who live in the US, but maybe not so easy for int'ls?)</p>
<p>Another reason (for the gals at least): My friend who is a Hollister model got in and will be going.</p>
<p>stasterisk, I want to go to a school that's not horrible. The alternative sounds worse.</p>
<p>Staskerisk, I think you just implicitly proved my point. I think what you're pointing out is a distinction without a difference.</p>
<p>I agree, there's a lot of the "It's Harvard" thing going on. But that's the point. Like it or not, the whole "It's Harvard" thing is something that is deeply attractive to a lot of people, which means that a lot of people are willing to sacrifice things to get it. </p>
<p>Look, at the end of the day, like it or not, Harvard does have the highest yield rate, one of the highest graduation rates, and one of the lowest transfer rates of all schools in the country. Most other schools would kill to be able to match Harvard in any of those 3 categories, never mind all 3. </p>
<p>Hence, the point is, all this carping from Harvard students really reminds me of the old Woody Allen joke where "the food is terrible, and such small portions too." People who go to Harvard and then complain about it are completely and utterly missing the point that if things were REALLY that bad there, then more people wouldn't be choosing to go there in the first place, more people would be dropping out, and more people would be transferring out. The fact that these things aren't happening only tells me that while things aren't perfect at Harvard, obviously a lot of Harvard people feel that the alternative is worse. People might dislike a lot of things at Harvard, but something is obviously compelling to go there and graduate, whether it's the "It's Harvard" thing or whatever it is, they are making a calculation that they are better off going to Harvard than somewhere else. If that weren't true, then they wouldn't be choosing to matriculate there and they wouldn't stay to graduate. </p>
<p>I'll put it to you this way. Let's say I hate my job and I want to quit. Then my boss offers me a million dollars a year to stay. I'd probably stay. I think a lot of people would have to admit that they'd stay if there were being honest. I'm making a tradeoff, and I think I'm benefitting even though my job sucks. I have the option to quit at any time. But if I stay, it means that I made the calculation that I am better off by staying than by quitting. Hence, all these Harvard students who complain - you really have to ask, what's the alternative? The fact that those Harvard students are staying must mean that they think that Harvard is better than the alternative.</p>
<p>There's a big difference between perception and reality. When most people decide to go to Harvard, they probably tell themselves they are willing to sacrifice more than they actually are. If the poll says the students are unhappy at Harvard, that is probably already colored by their "It's Harvard" outset, and they're still unhappy. Don't forget what a hassle it is to transfer. Especially among those who go to Harvard, the college process was probably not fun, and they don't want to go through it again. By the time a few years have passed, they're already seniors, and by that time, it's not worth. They're suffered through it, and if asked to choose again, they might not choose Harvard. Wanting to leave and transferring are not even close to the same thing because actually leaving takes so much more mental and emotional effort. </p>
<p>Yield rate by reputation, return and graduation rate by the hassles or transferring. It all comes from the initial impression, and by the time you know better, there's nothing you can do that doesn't take a lot of time and effort. </p>
<p>In your comparison to a job, what if they only offered you double your salary, but they were going to hold off for 10 years to give it to you? There is a significant downside to transferring, making new friends, and readjusting to a new school. There is a time factor to all this, and switching schools is not as easy as it may seem.</p>
<p>Look, I agree with your points, but what you're saying is still incomplete. The key is, when you talk about how students at Harvard are unhappy, you have to talk about the alternative. In other words, what is the frame of reference.</p>
<p>It is obviously true that it is a pain to go through the admissions process again as a transfer student. It is obviously a dramatically painful move to decide to drop out because you hate your school so much. It is obviously true that nobody wants to have to go out and make new friends and readjust. </p>
<p>But here's the killer question. Why is it a greater percentage of students at almost every other school is prepared to do precisely that? Why? Again, case in point, about 98% of incoming Harvard students graduate in 6 years, and about 99% eventually graduate. Compare that to, say, the 91% of incoming MIT students who graduate in 6, and ~ 93% who eventually graduate. Or the 91% of incoming Stanford students who graduate in 6, and the ~93-94% who eventually graduate. What's going on there? It's just a dramatic and painful step for an MIT or a Stanford student to choose to transfer out/drop out. After all, if they choose to transfer, they have to go through the hassle of the transfer process, make new friends, readjust, and all that stuff that you talked about. Do we have any reason to believe that it is somehow less of a hassle and less painful for a MIT or Stanford student to transfer out than it is for a Harvard student? If they drop out, then that's a dramatic step in its own right. Is there some reason to believe that MIT and Stanford students 'enjoy' dropping out more than Harvard students do? Yet the fact is, a greater percentage of MIT and Stanford students are more willing to leave than are Harvard students. </p>
<p>Hence, the point is, I doubt that the unhappiness at Harvard is really as bad as the students might say it is. After all - they can talk all the want, but very few of them actually leave. Contrast that with peer schools like Stanford and MIT, where a far greater percentage of the students do in fact leave. It seems to me that leaving your school isn't THAT traumatic and difficult, otherwise, why is it that so many students at so many other schools (not just at MIT and Stanford but at almost all other schools) choose to leave?</p>
<p>I think you cant compare dropout rates at MIT and Harvard because there is a much bigger probability that a student will not graduate in time for workload reasons at MIT than at Harvard.Im trying to avoid using grade inflation as the reason but at MIT there is no such thing as effort points.</p>
<p>And yet I think what you have pointed out is really a distinction without a difference, for the purposes of this discussion. This discussion is about happiness. I think it's safe to say that unhappiness and poor academic performance are intimately linked. I don't know too many people who are both happy and who are having trouble graduating. It seems to me that if you're not doing well in school, you're probably not very happy. Hence, the dropout rates (whether voluntary or involuntary dropouts) are both indicative of student happiness.</p>
<p>but I think there is less the college can do about academic performance than other factors.</p>
<p>Oh I disagree. Academic performance is intimately linked to the college's pedagogical philosophy. Keep in mind that 'performance' is a subjective word. It's all about how a college chooses to define what good performance and bad performance is. For example, I think we both know that many students who are 'performing badly' at MIT (according to MIT's definition of 'performing badly') would actually be performing rather well had they been going to almost any other school, the only exception possibly being a certain school in Pasadena. Case in point, a guy who's been expelled from MIT for bad grades (and is thus bitterly unhappy) might have done decently (not spectacularly, but decently) enough to graduate if he had gone to Harvard, and hence would have been far happier. </p>
<p>Hence, you might say that more people at MIT are exhibiting poor academic performance, and my response to that is that MIT chooses to define 'poor' performance far more broadly than almost any other school. The definition of what is 'poor performance' and what isn't is completely in the hands of the school. </p>
<p>Now, to be fair, I should point out that the same thing happens among the various majors/courses. Let's face it. Some MIT courses are far more difficult than others, and define 'poor performance' more broadly than others. I think there is no dispute that course 6 one of the difficult courses at MIT. So are courses 18, 8, 10, 16, 2, and the now semi-defunct course 13. On the other hand, certain courses are relatively easy. I am not going to name those courses, but we all know what they are. Again, the difference is what those courses define to be 'bad performance'. It is far easier to 'perform badly' in course 6 than it is in one of the relatively easy courses.</p>
<p>What's with all the jumbled logic? I mean, it's perfectly OK to admit that someone pointed out a perspective you have not considered. It's not always about winning or losing a debate. I'm no debater, but I can certainly notice when arguments are faulty.</p>
<p>You couldn't use graduation rates to directly measure happiness, neither could you use average GPA, so you linked together a series of logical-enough cause-effect kind of steps to go from graduation rates to happiness. You concluded that because a larger percentage of students graduate from school A than school B, it must mean (since the difficulty/stress of transfer is held constant) that more students CHOOSE to leave school B than school A, thereby indicating that more students are unhappy there. 2bad4u then very validly pointed out that many students, because of poor performance, are forced out of school B than school A, regardless of how much they would have enjoyed it there had they been an average caliber student for the school. </p>
<p>And here came the strange defense - that the dropouts are unhappy. The problem is that we're not talking about the happiness of the students who fail out of school B. No doubt they will be less than thrilled. But, we ARE talking about the overall "happiness" of the students. This means the average student. This means the student who can handle the work at school B.</p>
<p>While I understand your point, and agree with it somewhat, your rebuttal of the argument raised by 2bad4u is irrelevant. In your original proposition, you made the assumptions that P is caused by Q which is cause by R, therefore, rather directly, R causes P. This made sense, however it was just shown that S also causes Q, so, P might not be caused by R at all times - invalidating your original assumptions. </p>
<p>Yep. That's it for now :P</p>
<p>Oh come now, pebbles. You know and I know that students who do not graduate, either because they don't like it, or can't hack it, are unhappy. </p>
<p>Hence, I would say that 2bad4u's point is irrelevant. You said it yourself - it's about the happiness of the average student. But the average student is not the average student who happens to graduate. The average student is just that - the average student of the whole program, which means it's an amalgam of both the students who can handle it and those who can't. After all, why should we exclude those students who can't handle it? Last time I checked, they were part of the student body, at least for awhile. It seems to me that they should be included when you measure overall student satisfaction. To exclude those students is like calculating your GPA, but choosing no to count those classes in which you failed. </p>
<p>I think we can all agree that those students who can't handle it and flunk out are distinctly unhappy. Hence, it is entirely appropriate to capture their unhappiness when we're talking about the happiness of the entire student body (which comprises both students who can handle it and those who can't). Hence, the point stands, that those students who don't graduate, no matter what the reason for their non-graduation, are probably unhappy.</p>
<p>untrue. i know people who didn't graduate, will never come back to finish their degrees, and are really, truly, just fine and happy with their lives. they have successful careers, are living with people they enjoy, and don't appear to be unhappy in the slightest. others who've taken 1, 2, 3 years out in the middle to work, and haven't always been sure whether they'll end up graduating, weren't unhappy about not finishing, they were/are doing other things.</p>
<p>a piece of paper shouldn't constitute your sole measure of joy.</p>
<p>Uh, no, goddess32585, you've just changed the goalposts. </p>
<p>The question is not whether you are happy with your life overall. You have to read the entire thread in its context. The question is, are you happy with your school, specifically? I too know several people who also dropped out of school and are happy with their lives. But all of them agree that they weren't happy with their school - for if they were, they would have finished. And all of them wonder what would have happened if they had simply gone to a different school, or not gone to school at all, thereby saving not only money, but also those years of their lives that they will never get back. The upshot is that if you are truly happy with your school, you will probably graduate. </p>
<p>As a side corollary, if Harvard students are really unhappy with their school relative to the students at say MIT or Stanford, then why is it that Harvard, year after year, consistently tends to graduate a higher percentage of its students than MIT or Stanford does? So if Harvard students are unhappy, that leads me to believe that MIT or Stanford students are REALLY unhappy.</p>