<p>Only people who are interested in science/math disciplines apply to MIT. The school is much more restricting in that sense than HYPS. So it is basically absurd to say it is better, instead I would say it is different. Also who honestly believes Georgetown or Notre Dame are better than Columbia or Dartmouth....</p>
<p>Only math and science type? I would totally go to MIT for its economics and and management program. MIT is not only for the science and math types. Noam Chompsky, professor of Linguistics, world famous. Dude, you only think math and science types apply to MIT, you will be surprised.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Noam Chompsky [sic], professor of Linguistics, world famous.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>For grad linguistics, maybe--for undergrad, no.</p>
<p>And also, Chomsky retired quite a while ago. When he was professor, many complained about him for his constant infusion of politics into linguistics.</p>
<p>I'm very much a linguistics person, but the whole "math/science" aura deterred me from applying to MIT--not only the strict requirements for admission, but also the General Institute Requirements, much of which are centered around math/science. I'd say this sort of discouragement is fairly common, hence the whole "self-selection" bit (not necessarily in quality here, but in the polarization to a specific type of student, allowing MIT to sift through these students and choose the best ones--often ones who did not make into HYPS, I'll add).</p>
<p>I go to one of the top universities and the only two schools that I would consider an upgrade are MIT and Harvard. In that order. Unfortunately MIT doesn't have researchers in my sub-discipline. If it did I'm sure it would be one of the best in the world. They just seem to do everything well.</p>
<p>If you honestly think MIT is superior to Stanford Yale and Princeton...you know nothing about colleges.</p>
<p>Kyledavid80 - some would say that there is no escape from a constant infusion of politics into linguistics, with or without Chomsky. </p>
<p>MIT is ranked top in the world for technology. Does this ever open out to world choices?</p>
<p>
[quote]
some would say that there is no escape from a constant infusion of politics into linguistics, with or without Chomsky.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Some would be wrong. ;)</p>
<p>Honestly, it doesn't have to be like that. Sure, you can apply many of the linguistic concepts to politics--particularly to the rhetorical techniques of political figures and propaganda--but you do not really need to bring in politics when you're discussing lexical functional grammar, morphosyntactic alignment, or finite forms. I daresay you can keep it out of the overwhelming majority of linguistic lecture.</p>
<p>I think the more common complaint of Chomsky was that he got on his soapbox every five minutes for tangential rants on politics as it "relates" to linguistic inquiry.</p>
<p>Then again, many students did like Chomsky. So it's a trade-off.</p>
<p>
[quote]
MIT is ranked top in the world for technology.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, in the THES - QS Top Universities rankings in different areas, Berkeley was ranked #1 (MIT #2) for technology last year, I believe, and this year MIT's #1. But really, MIT is pretty much on par with schools like Berkeley, Stanford, etc. when it comes to technology.</p>
<p>I have just googled morphosyntactic alignment. I would be one of the people relieved when Chomsky got up on his soapbox. I can only just manage transitive and intransitive verbs. </p>
<p>I am a bit wet behind the ears here, and so am sure to repeat hackneyed debates, but the rankings must be questionable to some extent. Is there an enjoyment ranking?</p>
<p>harvard, princeton, yale, stanford, MIT, everything else</p>
<p>
[quote]
I can only just manage transitive and intransitive verbs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Considering that that's a topic in the standard middle school curriculum of English grammar... morphosyntactic alignment just expands it.</p>
<p>Linguists find it interesting--less so Chomsky's opinions on current politics.</p>
<p>My morphosyntactic alignment was off, but one visit to a chiropractor and I was feeling great.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you honestly think MIT is superior to Stanford Yale and Princeton...you know nothing about colleges.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I love comments like this.</p>
<p>Anyway, on to my point...</p>
<p>I have visited many colleges, and MIT has always struck me as so unique and different from these other schools like Yale and Princeton which I feel attract the same old "perfect" students who want prestige, power, and to look down upon others (the ability of a student to obtain an excellent education at many different schools [most of them non-Ivy League] has been discussed ad nausem on these boards, so I shouldn't have to explain that "getting a good education" is never the reason for choosing a school like Yale or Princeton). </p>
<p>MIT, however, seems to attract normal, everyday students who find that they are ridiculously good at math, science, or other quantitative work and want to be challenged to meet their fullest potential. Overall, the people at MIT seem passionate, genuine, and unconcerned with prestige; they are there to challenge themselves and learn with the "best of the best," not to inflate their egos and cultivate an image of elitism and superiority. </p>
<p>The top 50% at MIT consists of some of the smartest people in the world, despite this lack of concern for "superiority" that seems to be ingrained into students' egos at some other schools (Yale and Princeton stand out to me, with their secret societies and eating clubs. All that exclusiveness makes me sick!).</p>
<p>So don't start with the "Top 10% SAT scores of yale are better than mit blah blah blah Yale/Princeton > MIT," because in my heart I will always know that for a student to get into MIT, he/she must have some special intellectual curiosity or ability that really appealed to that admissions committee, because grades and test scores hardly scratch the surface for measuring the potential of the people who are actually the smartest and best math/science students in the world.</p>
<p>If you still don't believe me, just look at the MIT website: [url=<a href="http://mit.edu%5DMIT%5B/url">http://mit.edu]MIT[/url</a>]
The designs and patterning on the front page, combined with its aesthetic simplicity and elegance simply stun the viewer. I have yet to see an equally well-designed/easily-navigable website for a school!</p>
<p>*this post refers to undergraduate programs solely. "prestige" of a program is much more essential in graduate school (unlike undergrad), so berkeley people, please don't start.</p>
<p>i personally consider MIT kids smarter than those at harvard, yale, princeton, and stanford. the latter students i think of as more accomplished or driven, but the MIT kids i think of as genius. this also might have something to do with the fact that i look at science/math people as the geniuses, whereas its hard for me to recognize genius in the arts and english.</p>
<p>^^^</p>
<p>Thats the general feeling of people living IN Cambridge next to Harvard and MIT.</p>
<p>MIT = Genius</p>
<p>Harvard = Smart, Prestige.</p>
<p>If you come to Cambridge, I can show you around. Your an idiot if you don't think MIT is atleast on par if not smarter than HYPS</p>
<p>indiejimmy, i have a few comments.</p>
<p>although I agree with your description of MIT, I completely disagree with you on your description of Yale (can't speak for Princeton). First of all, you aren't in any place whatsoever to judge the student body at Yale (unless you attend like I do). Yalies are laid back, NEVER talk about high school achievements/test scores, cooperative, fun-loving, passionate, and genuine. Just because Yalies have high test scores and happen to attend a prestigious college, doesn't mean they're stuck up and pretentious (although a few of those students exist, as they likely do at MIT as well). Also, the Secret Societies at Yale are basically an invisible aspect of social life. Nobody cares about them on campus; we celebrate our warm, residential college system.</p>
<p>Basically, your comments on other schools are purely speculation (influenced by false, out-dated stereotypes). Please, when you know so very little about a school, it's best to keep quiet rather than make misleading, unsubstantiated claims.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i personally consider MIT kids smarter than those at harvard, yale, princeton, and stanford. the latter students i think of as more accomplished or driven, but the MIT kids i think of as genius.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>if book smarts were all that mattered, the world would be run by rocket scientists. apparently, however, IQ only gets you so far in this world. I'd argue that "EQ" is, after a certain level of intelligence, much more important than "IQ" -- you can't learn things like leadership, charisma, network building, etc. Of course those things are much harder to "quantify" by definition, but I believe that HYPS does a better job of identifying those kinds of candidates vs. a school that might be much more cut and dried about its admission such as a Caltech or MIT.</p>
<p>^^ not to mention HYPS--though probably more so Stanford in math/science/engineering--have those "genius" types that MIT has. Again, MIT doesn't have a monopoly on that sort of student.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yale and Princeton which I feel attract the same old "perfect" students who want prestige, power, and to look down upon others
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
MIT, however, seems to attract normal, everyday students who find that they are ridiculously good at math, science, or other quantitative work and want to be challenged to meet their fullest potential.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
despite this lack of concern for "superiority" that seems to be ingrained into students' egos at some other schools
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wow, you actually believe that? You honestly think you can generalize an entire student body? I'll tell you this: MIT has just as many arrogant, prestige-seeking, contemptuous, ego-driven students as the others.</p>
<p>Notice that people often say HYPSM--because MIT is very much like the others in many aspects.</p>
<p>
[quote]
grades and test scores hardly scratch the surface for measuring the potential of the people who are actually the smartest and best math/science students in the world.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You don't think that MIT loses to schools like Stanford, Harvard, etc. in math/science? Those schools too attract some of the smartest and best math/science students in the world.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i personally consider MIT kids smarter than those at harvard, yale, princeton, and stanford. the latter students i think of as more accomplished or driven, but the MIT kids i think of as genius.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Honestly, you can't logically generalize an entire student body, and the students at these schools are more alike than you think. You forget that you have to be very accomplished to get into MIT, as well as the other schools. And HYPS too attract many "genius" students.</p>
<p>Methinks this is just a case of "awe" over those accepted. Sorry to say this, but MIT isn't always looking for the genius, but for the passionate, the engaged, and the bright. This is pretty much the same as HYPS.</p>
<p>I never said MIT was worse then HYPS. I just think your an idiotif you think its better. In my opinion and I think most people's they are all equally excellent institutions.</p>
<p>Kyledavid is manifestly not an idiot, and would, i would hazard, be able to differentiate between "your" and "you're".</p>
<p>I think he's being rather general with that "your". I also think he's typing quickly and chooses not to care about spelling.</p>
<p>Anyways, would you give the same considerations to Caltech? Or does its social reputation drag down its academic one?</p>