<p>Has anybody here read The Idea Factory: Learning to Think at MIT by Pepper White. I've just finished it and I have to say it reminds me of why I'm going to MIT but also gives you some insight as to why so many people hate it while they're there. Definitely recommended reading for anyone planning to go to MIT.</p>
<p>I'm on page 100 or so. Man I'm glad I'm not doing Mech Eng :P</p>
<p>In all fairness to Pepper White, I think that much of what is in the Idea Factory is outdated. I think the book is accurate for the 'old' MIT, but not today's MIT.</p>
<p>Let me give you the perspective of students at MIT's LFM program - the combined dual-master's degree program run by the MIT School of Engineering and the Sloan School of Management, where students earn both an SM in engineering (of the discipline of your choice) as well as an MBA (or optionally an SM) from the Sloan School, all in a 2 year timeframe. LFM students are expected to fulfill all of the requirements for the SM in engineering, including the master's thesis, in addition to fulfilling all the Sloan MBA requirements. Most MIT graduate students take a maximum of 2, on very rare occassions, 3 classes per semester (in addition to research for their thesis). LFM students routinely take, including their Sloan stuff, something like 6-8 classes. Granted, Sloan classes are generally easier than engineering classes, but still, it's not only extra work, but often times unrelated and time-consuming work. LFM students routinely complain about the problem of having to do constant context-switching: just when they are starting to get into the groove of their engineering studies, they have to put it aside because they have something due in Strategy or Marketing class. </p>
<p>Not only that, but all LFM students are academically rusty, having been out in the workforce for several years. The bare minimum work experience to be eligible for LFM is 2 years, and most of them have far more than that (the average age of incoming LFM students is about 28, which is about the same as regular incoming Sloan MBA students). This is because every LFM student is also a fully admitted Sloan MBA student and hence has to be approved by the Sloan MBA program. Hence, that means that LFM students have been working and hence have not been in an academic environment for years. Many LFM'ers have been working as managers or supervisors and hence have REALLY let their hard-core hands-on engineering atrophy. At the very least, you could say that LFM'ers engineering skills tend to be quite rusty when compared to the normal MIT engineering graduate students, most of whom have never left school and are thus fully tuned and honed. I remember one LFM'er saying that he couldn't remember how to do basic calculus anymore - after all, he had been in the workforce for almost a decade where he never had to use calculus for anything, so he naturally doesn't remember how to use it. </p>
<p>Furthermore, consider the environment. Regular engineering graduate students have their own offices and desks in the School of Engineering, where they get to socialize with other engineering students and profs. Where are the LFM desks? In E40, near the Sloan School. LFM students rarely get desks in the School of Engineering (as far as I know, only course 10 LFMers - the ChemE's - get such desks), and in any case, don't get to hang out very often in the School of Engineering anyway, because they always have to go back to Sloan to take care of Sloan stuff. Sloan classes are notorious for basing grades on attendance and having team assignments that require constant meetings and facetime with regular Sloan students. Hence, LFM'ers get very little time to immerse themselves in the engineering environment.</p>
<p>So, let's summarize. LFM'ers have a courseload that is several times that of the regular MIT grad-students, and have to deal with the extremely annoying problem of constant context-switching between engineering classes and Sloan classes. They still have to do a thesis just like regular MIT grad-students. LFM'ers have been out in the workforce for several years, often times including some years as a manager, and hence, their academic skills tend to be quite rusty and degraded compared to regular MIT eng grad-students. It's been years since they have been in a classroom. Finally, they don't get to immerse themselves in an engineering environment the way that most eng grad-students do, because they always have to take care of things at Sloan. </p>
<p>Yet the fact is, LFM has existed since 1988, and every single LFM student has managed to complete the program and get both degrees. Yes, that's right. Every single student in the history of the program. </p>
<p>So now you might be thinking - well, that might be explained if every LFM student is simply a super-genius. Are they super geniuses? I would say 'not really'. Are they darn good? Of course. They are probably the best students at Sloan. But compared to the students at the School of Engineering? Not really. And I'm not the one saying it - this is something that has been said many times by LFM'ers themselves, many of whom I know. All of them have basically said the same thing to me - that they really aren't as good as most of the other MIT engineering grad-students. One LFM student told me frankly that if they really were as good as those other students are and had the same kind of passion for engineering the way those other students do, then they would have been the ones trying to get their MIT engineering PhD's, just like the other students are. </p>
<p>Hence, the point is that these students are not the best grad-students at MIT, not even close, and have the deck completely stacked against them, and yet they all still manage to graduate.<br>
Some of them don't graduate with the best grades, but they still manage to graduate. </p>
<p>Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that MIT is easy. Far from it. MIT is arguably the most difficult school in the country. However, I think that while the tone of the Idea Factory might have been correct in the past, it's not true of the MIT of today. I think Pepper White tends to dwell too much on the negative and difficult aspects of MIT, and, while I don't want to be overly harsh, it is also possible that he may not have been that good of a student. After all, it took him 3 years to complete a single master's degree in course 2 (MechE), whereas it takes LFM'ers 2 years to complete 2 master's degrees. Again,I don't want to be harsh, but you really have to ask why that is.</p>
<p>haven't read the book, but know people who have and have talked to folks about some of the stuff in it. just to comment on one particular point: there's often a lot of reasons that'll affect how long it takes someone to graduate, totally independent (mostly) of classes/workload and intelligence. from what i can tell, it hits undergrads around here a fair amount, and grad students to some extent...tho my sample is rather skewed. it depends on what you're actually aiming for when you come here.</p>
<p>I think it has a lot to do with simple organizational integrity and integration of the students into the department. In other words, simple blocking and tackling. There really is no reason for a master's degree student, in any discipline, whether at MIT or anywhere else, to need more than 2 years to graduate. Again, not to sound like a broken record, but look at the LFM program. Every single LFM student in the history of the program has been able to earn 2 master's degrees from MIT in 2 years. Every single one. Think about it this way - LFM is not exactly a particularly well-funded or a particularly powerful program in MIT from a political standpoint. LFM is neither a 'department' nor a 'course' nor a 'school'. It is just a lowly interdisciplinary program. LFM students are basically crushed in their workload, for they need to serve 2 bosses - the School of Engineering and the Sloan School. Yet at the end of the day, LFM students all manage to get their degrees in 2 years. So if LFM can get its students 2 master's degrees in 2 years, why can't the other departments do more to ensure that their students graduate in a reasonable length of time?</p>
<p>Again, not to be harsh, but Pepper White took 3 years to graduate with a single master's degree. That's simply too long. You might say that he was spending much of that time trying to get his PhD, but he ended up failing his quals. But I believe that's part of the problem. If a guy isn't good enough to get his PhD, then he should be told that fact as early in the process as possible so that he doesn't waste time. Furthermore, I believe that MIT (and every other school) should help those graduate students who want a master's degree to get it as quickly as possible. You shouldn't need to spend 3 years to get a single master's degree - not while LFM students get 2 master's in 2 years. </p>
<p>However, in fairness to Pepper, at least he managed to graduate with a degree. Some MIT students (undergrad and grad) don't even manage to do that. And in my opinion, that's a far bigger problem. If you think a guy isn't good enough to finish his degree, then, fine, don't admit him in the first place. And those students who you have admitted, MIT should do more to help them finish their degree in a reasonable amount of time. I know what you're thinking - how can you tell whether a person really is good enough to graduate? And can departments really go around helping its students to graduate? Again, not to constantly repeat myself, but I point to LFM. LFM students all manage to graduate, and on time, and with 2 master's. If LFM can do it, why can't the rest of MIT? </p>
<p>Now, don't get me wrong. MIT is the best technical school in the world. And many of the problems I have been pointing out about MIT are not specific to MIT, but are problems in all schools. But my point is that LFM has really the bar regarding what is possible, and serves as the prime counterexample to all the excuses out there that schools tend to hide behind. You say that it's impossible for schools to figure out who they should admit and reject? Then how come LFM has managed to figure it out? You say that a school can't be held responsible for students slacking off and not graduating on time? Then how come LFM never seems to have this problem?</p>
<p>out of curiosity, how large is an LFM class (ie, how many people/year)?</p>
<p>i could pick out some reasons that might explain the difference in performance between MIT as a whole and LFM. perhaps something in the population of those in straight engineering as opposed to those with an (additional) interest in management. perhaps just the larger sample size. i also think you're placing far too little weight on the strange and non-standard things that happen to people that can postpone or derail graduation. coming from the standpoint of someone who is quite conversant with many, many people who have dropped out, some who've come back, some who're in the process of reapplying, some who've moved on and are succeeding without a degree, some who're flailing indefinitely, some who're on their 9th year of their thesis...while i'm in no position to be actually sure (ie, i haven't seen their grades or transcripts), i'm pretty confident that not all these people are incapable of getting the work done. sometimes getting a degree in "a reasonable amount of time" isn't the best path to where you want to be. and sometimes, stuff happens, and neither you nor MIT can predict that.</p>
<p>it's eminently possible to get out of MIT in the "normal" amount of time for whichever degree you're pursuing, and i'd be surprised if someone tried to argue that they absolutely couldn't find a way to do that. but not everyone is satisfied/works well with that, and there's only so much MIT can do to combat that. seriously. i actually find it refreshing, how (comparatively; it's still a pretty rocky process, sometimes, getting readmitted frexample) accepting MIT is of non-standard paths to graduation. also, i'm not arguing that that's necessarily the case for Pepper White; as noted, I haven't read the book. but i felt like taking on your contention that there's no good reason MIT and other schools should have students who take longer than expected to graduate, and that they should somehow be able to predict this, just b/c LFM does. i'd argue a combination of luck, comparatively small sample size, and a differently oriented population, but that's just me.</p>
<p>LFM takes in about 50 people per year. </p>
<p>You might argue that 50 people per year really isn't that large, and I agree. On the other hand, I would point to two factors. One, the yearly intake of LFM's is actually larger than the intake of graduate students at many other MIT departments. For example, how many grad-students does course 16 (Aero/Astro) take in every year? How many grad-students did the now defunct course 13 (Ocean Engineering) used to take in every year? Secondly, I would also argue that the factors that LFM students face are not trivial by any means. The issue is that, again, LFM students, from a coursework, time management, and environmental standpoint, basically have the entire deck stacked against them, and they still all manage to graduate on time. I find it interesting indeed that in the entire history of the program, every single LFM student has managed to graduate, despite having to complete far more coursework than a normal, single-degree graduate student, despite not being able to immerse themselves in an engineering environment (and still being expected to complete an engineering master's), despite being academically rusty. </p>
<p>I don't think I'm placing too little weight on strange and non-standard things that can happen, because the killer question is - why is it that LFM students never seem to have any strange and non-standard things happen to them to derail their graduation? You would think that with the odds stacked against them the way they are, nonstandard things are more likely to happen to them than to anybody else. Yet, it has never happened. Why not? </p>
<p>Look, I don't deny that luck has a role. So does a small sample size (although, again, it should be pointed out that the annual LFM intake is actually larger than the annual intake of normal graduate students at many MIT departments). So does a differently oriented population. These are all factors. </p>
<p>However, what I am pointing out is that these are clearly not the only factors. Personal motivation, personal behavior, and simple desire are also important. We agree that orientation has something to do with it. I would argue that the other programs whose students tend not to finish on time perhaps ought to look into the possibility that they are admitting a disproportionate number of students who are not well-oriented and don't have a strong desire to graduate on time. LFM students, by their own admission, are not the best students on campus, but to a man (and woman) they are all extremely motivated, hard-working, and dedicated to graduate on time. In other words, poor orientation. I am arguing that perhaps the other programs ought to simply not admit students who aren't as dedicated as they need to be. </p>
<p>I would also argue that another big part of it is simple departmental organization and culture. LFM's resources are puny compared to other MIT programs. But what LFM does have is a leadership that is dedicated to ensuring that its students graduate. For example, the LFM directors work closely with LFM students to try to ensure that every single student is completing the requirements satisfactorily, and works actively with the students to monitor danger signs and dissatisfaction. The LFM leadership even charges its students to watch out for fellow LFM students who aren't doing well, so that they can be rescued. In short, LFM has developed a strong culture of mutual aid and mutual trust. Some LFM students don't do well, but LFM pitches in to help them to graduate, and they all manage to make it to graduation. In short, LFM takes responsibility for the success of each of its students. This is a far far cry from the culture of some of the other departments, whose attitudes seem to be that if you're doing poorly, too bad, that's your problem. I would argue that that sort of culture and mindset has something to do with why some students don't make it. Some students don't make it because their departments don't really care whether they graduate. Some students don't graduate on time because their departments aren't really intererested in having them graduate on time. </p>
<p>In short, I don't deny that the factors that you have pointed out play some role. On the other hand, I would point out that personal behavior and organizational culture also play a role. Which factors are more important in individual circumstances is really an empirical question. My point is that when somebody graduates late or doesn't graduate at all, you can't just always simply chalk it up to bad luck. That person's personal motivation and work ethic might have had something to do with it. The department's culture might also have had something to do with it.</p>
<p>the point i'm trying to make, perhaps poorly, is that for some, graduating on time isn't important, and MIT in some cases feels free to agree with them. it's the last bit that's important. you seem to find it a great travesty that not every student graduates on time, but that's not necessarily the case. having a department that isn't pushing you out the door strictly at the 2-year mark isn't everyone's idea of a bad place to be. at least, i don't think so. but then, i'm just a twit of an undergrad who's failing at both majors she's attempting, so what do i know?</p>
<p>Well, I would propose that it is more complicated than that. I would propose that there are actually several categories that we need to deal with.</p>
<p>The first, and most egregious, are those people who never graduate at all. And for those people, I would ask, why even admit people who are never going to graduate? This is not a game here. You admit people who never graduate, and you're just basically wasting everybody's time - the student's time, the school's time, everybody's time. Now obviously you are not going to be perfect - I'm not asking for a 100% graduation rate. But there are many programs, either at MIT or at many other places, where the graduation rate is conspicuously low. For example, there are plenty of PhD programs, whether at MIT or elsewhere, where a conspicuous percentage of incoming students end up with no degree whatsoever. </p>
<p>Then there is another category of student who actually want to graduate on time, but end up graduating late because of poor management of their program administrators. Many programs simply do not give good advice to their students about what it takes to speed up your graduation (i.e. what classes you take, how to get your thesis work signed off quickly, etc.), and I suspect that is because many programs simply don't want to give good advice. I believe that many departments are actually incented to slow the progression of their students, because the more years they stay, the more they have to work as cheap research assistants and hence the more cheap labor the department has. </p>
<p>Contrast that with the LFM program which has active student committees, encouraged by LFM, where previous LFM classes can tell new LFM classes how to survive LFM, what are the good (read:easier) classes to take, how to complete the thesis in a timely fashion, etc. LFM even publishes a brochure, written by former LFM students and paid for by LFM, which details exactly how to get through LFM (i.e., such-and-such classes are too time-consuming, so don't take them, such-and-such advisors are easy and helpful so you should try to use them, such-and-such advisors are difficult and unhelpful, so avoid them, etc.). In short, LFM provides a complete roadmap that is not filled with stupid trite palavers like "just work hard" or other such Mickey Mouse advice, but rather, real and hard-hitting advice about how to play the game. Other programs don't give a roadmap to their students and they don't want to give a roadmap to students, leaving them to fend for themselves, and if they end up graduating late or not at all, that's too bad. What is sad is when non-LFM students end up reading the LFM student brochures and attending those LFM student committees to get access to information about what classes to take and what advisors to contact that their own programs could have tol them but refused. Think about what that means - your own program refuses to provide you with information you need to graduate on time, so you end up having to go to meetings of another program to find the information you want to graduate from your own program on time.</p>
<p>Finally, there is the category that you're talking about - those students who don't really want to graduate on time. And to this, I would have to wonder if this is just a simple lack of desire. It's one thing to say that you found other things that are important to do, so maybe you should just withdraw from school to do those things. Fine. But just hanging around as a student, but not graduating in a timely fashion? Again, I would point out that this is not a game here. You go to school to get a degree. If you're not making decent progression towards getting a degree, then why are you in school at all? Maybe you should withdraw and get a job, and then come back when you are ready to make steady progression to a degree. And I'm sure you must concede, schools shouldn't just have boatloads of students just lollygagging around taking years and years to graduate and just basically loitering around doing nothing. You gotta either fish or cut bait. At best, these students are soaking up academic resources that could be better used by those students who do want to graduate on time.</p>
<p>I suspect that the LFM roadmap you describe was initiated by LFM students themselves. Perhaps the committees were too. What's to keep students in any program from doing the same thing? They wouldn't even need MIT support to print and distribute written advice; they could just put it online.</p>
<p>You go to school to get a degree.
no, i go to school to learn things. this is probably why we're still arguing about this. that, and i'm not entirely sure what you define as "decent progression" towards graduation. there's a lot more to do around here than just take classes, TA, and write your thesis. i'd take issue with your contention that students who aren't making timely progress towards graduation are necessarily impeding those who'd like to, but another probably source of discrepancy is that my primary datapoints are from undergraduate departments; i know a great many grad students, but are even less in contact with their academic environments than i am with ug depts in which i'm not taking classes or have friends. i've heard of advisors from hell and wonky scheduling that permits no deviation, from various departments, but the fact that <em>i've</em> heard of it suggests that such knowledge is pretty common and anyone who cares to listen could be similarly informed. conversely, i don't think i've ever heard it suggested seriously that departments have purposely impeded their students from graduating, and we're a pretty paranoid bunch; news like that would certainly get around quickly. i won't rule out the possibility, of course, but if so...that's really sad. really, really sad.</p>
<p>the advice about which classes to take or not, and which professors to work with, and other survival tips passed on from older to younger students is something i see all the time, not in the formalized way you have, but just as a natural part of the student community, one of those things MIT is known for having. course 6, the largest UG major, does it formally, through HKN (an honor society), but other majors all have upperclassmen who recall getting advice from old folks when they were frosh, and turn around and pass it on, just b/c <em>that's what you do.</em> again, this may be a particular feature of the undergrads here (tho it tends to retain folks after graduation, so also includes grad students). it's possible for people to fall outside this system, and never pick up on the information that's fairly easily available, and to that i really can't do much without a clue-by-four.</p>
<p>i don't think anyone comes in here with the intention of not graduating "on time", but eventually become open to the possibility and find that that option works out better. at the end of the day, it comes down to people making their own choices about how they inform themselves, what classes they take, how hard they work, and what their own goals are. and that's where i'm going to leave this, b/c we're coming at ths from diametrically opposed beliefs and datasets, so enough.</p>
<p>I agree with you, so that does in fact beg the question - what exactly is to keep the students in any program from doing the same thing? Yet the facts are stark - LFM is doing it, some of the other programs are doing it, but many of the other programs are not. And like I said, there are students from those other programs who specifically attend LFM meetings in order to get the information about their own programs that they can't get from their own programs. </p>
<p>I would argue that it is simply the cultural and organizational attitudes of those programs. You said it yourself - why is it that LFM students would take it upon themselves to help their fellow students, whereas students at other programs won't? I would argue that it is because LFM makes it a priority to encourage camaraderie and tight organizational bonds. LFM makes it a priority to admit students who are pleasant to work with and who will go out of their way to help others. Furthermore, LFM strongly encourages tight bonds and teamwork. In short, the attitude of LFM is that everybody should help everybody else. Other programs have an entirely different cultural mindset. I don't want to name names, but basically, there are other programs at MIT and elsewhere where the attitude seems to be that students are on their own, and if they encounter difficulty, that's their problem. Those programs do not place a priority on screening out jerks who tear at the community spirit (let's face it - some students are just jerks), and do not encourage student cooperation and camaraderie. Is it any wonder that in such programs, the students don't want to cooperate? </p>
<p>It's not just about providing the mechanisms, it's about providing the students with the motivation to do it in the first place. Sure, you can say that the students can just put the information online, and of course they can, but that's not the point. The students have to WANT to put the information online in the first place. Basically, before we can talk about what students are able to do, we first have to talk about what they want to do. For example, when an LFM student goes and takes an engineering class that nobody in LFM has ever done before, the administrators closely monitor the performance of that student in the class, including talking with the prof about what LFM is all about, about the special circumstances that LFM students are in, and so forth. If the student does poorly, then the administrators will encourage that student to drop. If the student does well, then the administrators will discuss with that student whether that class might possibly be valuable for LFM students in the future, and the entire LFM community will be alerted that that student is now an 'authority' about that particular class. Not only that, but future LFM students who are interested in that same subject will be encouraged to contact that student to find out if that is a class they should consider. </p>
<p>That's just one example of what LFM will do to encourage student feedback and community. There are many other examples. Many other programs, whether at MIT or elsewhere, will not do any of this stuff. The attitude of many other programs is that the students are on their own. </p>
<p>Hence, the point is, you cannot dismiss the importance of culture. The culture of LFM is that timely graduation of all the students is an important thing, and LFM thus does many things to encourage students to adopt an attitude of wanting to help other students to graduate. The culture of other programs is that timely graduation (or for some programs, graduation period, whether timely or not) is not important, and so students do not have an attitude of wanting to help other students to graduate. It is therefore no coincidence to me that LFM has a better record at timely graduation than those other programs do. It is what the organizational culture teaches or doesn't teach its students that is the key.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You go to school to get a degree.
no, i go to school to learn things
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And that's where we disagree, fundamentally, goddess32585. You may say that you came to school to learn things, but the fact of the matter is, your school admitted you to a DEGREE program, which means that the school expects you to complete a degree. If you just want to go to MIT to learn things, you could have registered as a non-degree-candidate special student. </p>
<p>Ask yourself, why are you in a degree-program at MIT if your goal is not to get a degree? While I don't want to be harsh, I would say that if you don't really care very much about getting a degree, I would say that the fair and ethical thing for you to do is withdraw (become a special-student or whatever) and thereby free up a spot for somebody who does want to complete a degree.</p>
<p>No - the spot is mine. My spot.</p>
<p>-hugs spot-</p>
<p>earn your own.</p>
<p>sakky's posts are so amazingly <em>long</em>. . . all of them! brevity is the soul of wit.</p>
<p>If you don't like my posts, then don't read them.</p>
<p>"No - the spot is mine. My spot.</p>
<p>-hugs spot-</p>
<p>earn your own."</p>
<p>LOL</p>