<p>You know what, half my relatives went to an IIT school (Madras/New Delhi)</p>
<p>You know what their eventual goal was?</p>
<p>To come to America to get there PhD's. All the Indians come to places like Penn State, Pitt, Houston, Rice, Mich, etc. to get their PhD's and to stay here. So IIT may be good in one respect, but its mostly to prepare students - not to innovate them to remain and do research and whatnot.</p>
<p>Are Oxford and Cambridge still around? I thought they became museums like in London or something. My friends say they have those funny looking soldiers with the black hats that look like Marge Simpson's hair. They're supposed to guard stolen Egyptian artifacts in a glass case. Anyway, I didn't know Oxford was still teaching people.</p>
<p>thethoughtprocess,</p>
<p>that echoes sentiments that my fellow Wharton buddy (IIT undergrad) told me as well. as for him? he ended up at a top US consulting firm and moved his whole family over to the States.</p>
<p>haha uberdude, do you purposely try to be an idiot or is it just natural?</p>
<p>about the iit thing, all of us agree that iit= no ecs, no sports and u dont get a well-rounded individual. the iit grads dont care about whats happening in the world, they care more about the money. I agree by intellectual levels they can give ne1 in this world a run for his money but i dont think sheer intellectual prowess is sufficient to survive.
So according to me:
1. MIT,
2. Harvard
3. Princeton/ yale/ stanford</p>
<p>IIT grads don't care about money, they care about learning and science (and being good enough to get to America with what they learn)</p>
<p>IIT grads move to America and mainly get jobs that are pure engineering jobs; for example, my uncle went to IIT and works as an environmental consultant</p>
<p>"It's not that shallow. Prestige is almost always earned."</p>
<p>What exactly is this Prestige thing? It is certainly not defined by tagging it to research output alone. While there is nothing shallow in Prestige, people who believe in it way too much are just shallow.</p>
<p>Actually adides, I do not agree that IIT = no ECs.</p>
<p>IITs take the best academic students. Of course this means that there will be some hardcore geeks, but there are a lot of very good well rounded individuals as well.</p>
<p>Oxford and Cambridge are just glorified museums with fiscal problems.</p>
<p>lol hash, not really...if you get into IIT its not because you play soccer well or because you can play the clarinet, its completely, absolutely numbers based</p>
<p>think of it this way...iit's select brains while american univ.'s (in general) select people.</p>
<p>if sheer brain power is what it takes to succeed in this world, then we'd live in a world run by number crunching geeks with their slide rulers and HP calculators. </p>
<p>as it is, we have a "Gentleman C" President sitting in the White House.</p>
<p>now that may be an extreme example, but clearly, sheer brain power (particularly "book smarts" / "on paper" intelligence) is rarely the only thing necessary to succeed in the real world.</p>
<p>but "life is unfair" (or fair depending on one's perspective) - i.e. we don't live in some utopian society that is purely merit driven (and who's definition of and measurement by "merit" should everyone live by anyway?) </p>
<p>life's "race" doesn't always go to the fastest or strongest (though, clearly, it doesn't hurt to be).</p>
<p>but let's take an example of the reality show "Survivor" (or some variant of). now take a mix of two groups of people: 1) pure "book" smart people and 2) pure "street" smart people. who is more likely to wind up on top? i'd argue someone from group 2. and i'd further argue that life is much closer to "Survivor" than it is a day sitting for the SATs.</p>
<p>some measure or mix of: charisma, street smarts, timing, luck, connections, business instinct, leadership, etc. are all examples of intangible qualities / skills which many times "trump" pure brain power. and how does one go about "measuring" things like an ability to produce innovative ideas? what about being able to "think out of the box"? what about creativity? etc.? You simply can't.</p>
<p>i think that's why the US admissions process at the "elite" schools will generally produce a better "crop" of graduates who are more likely to succeed in the real world vs. a sheer "numbers driven" admissions process such as it is at IIT (which is not to say that IIT will have its fair share of successful people, they most certainly will).</p>
<p>but can you imagine a world in which 100% of America's "elite" schools were filled with the top students "purely by the numbers"? The "yield" of future leaders would decrease dramatically (not to mention our creative / innovative edge).</p>
<p>i also think that's why America's future is still a positive one. the technology gap will continue to close with other nations to be sure, however, the US will still be able to produce leaders who value innovation and creativity - and this - the actual value added application of technology (or to make $$$ for the cynics) - is what America does best.</p>
<p>uh wow. my dad went to IIT in bengal and played both water polo and cricket there. trust me, he didn't get recruited and neither did any of his teammates. they just worked their butts off, passed a ridiculous test before they were 18, and somehow got in.</p>
<p>but yeah, that's def. true about the PhD's. most IIT grads go to big public state schools in america because they give a lot of financial assistance and respect from the academic community here. my dad went to the u of iowa over caltech cause he couldn't afford the tuition in pasadena.</p>
<p>and i'm sorry, but i really disagree with you ivygrad. yeah, you do have a point, but america is still several years behind in technology compared to a bunch of countries in the Far East and Europe. and while life may not be comparable to sitting for an SAT exam, it isn't really fickle like a reality show either. and, ultimately, an "application of technology" (or 'making $$$' as you call it) is just not a motivation that americans should be 100% proud of.</p>
<p>buttmunch, go and crawl bak into your deep dark hole....</p>
<p>thethoughtprocess: I did not say that IIT admissions were based on ECs. I was saying that there are a lot of well rounded individuals that are smart enought to get in.</p>
<p>Just because admissions don't take ECs into account, it doesn't mean they don't possess them!</p>
<p>Maths /World:
(France)
Ecole Polytechnique
Ecole Centrale
Ecole des Mines</p>
<p>oh yeah, true Harsh</p>
<p>in fact, IIT madras as a huuuuge stadium for cricket, a soccer field, and has lots of musicians and poets and stuff. It really is a nice place - too bad the workload is gianormous.</p>
<p>IIT is an excellent school that I surely respect. All the people talking about IIT and ECs...Common, IIT is meant to be that way. Although the schools have quite a few activities, they care less for it. The students who choose it, want to be that way. They care much more for "technology" studies than ECs. Also, you have to understand that IIT is not rich. They try to maximize their resources. Look at their old buildings, limited water supply etc...I commend IIT for it's output.</p>
<p>And no, it does not mean IIT students are not well-rounded...There are several grads who are now the leaders of large companies. And leadership requires lot more than beeing a geek.</p>
<p>Intel...where do u think you would place mcgill university in that number grouping?</p>
<p>iit=numbers. point blank.</p>