<p>my friend is choosing duke</p>
<p>LucyLu-- Ouch, looks like I touched a nerve LucyLu. I hope MIT2010 will do just fine too, but my point is why MIT for Science? And please don't personalize.</p>
<p>hereiam--I am not contradicting myself at all. I never said I personally would choose MIT over Harvard; I would never do that. But lots of people look at it differently than I do. But I know a lot of people who are science-oriented and don't really want that liberal arts experience like I do, people who will be very content to and would rather go to a place like MIT or Caltech and be around mostly scientists, taking mostly science courses.</p>
<p>Harvardguy--It is not that simple a choice, exactly. You seemed to imply that it was when you lambasted MIT2010 a page back.</p>
<p>EDIT: Harvardguy, anyone who is in sciences knows that in many fields, MIT is simply better than Harvard. That's the simple answer to your question. That is why MIT over Harvard for science. Because say if you want to go into Field X and ask people who are in Field X, they will in many cases tell you that MIT has more professors and better professors than Harvard, better/more cutting-edge research going on and more opportunities to partake in it. It's as simple as that. Are you a scientist? Because if not, then chances are MIT2010 is in more of a position to make an accurate judgement on this than you are.</p>
<p>i never said you'd choose mit over harvard. i said they'd choose harvard</p>
<p>lol</p>
<p>owned</p>
<p>P.S. GuitarManARS, are you kidding? I mentioned the Times Higher Education Supplement rankings NOT Times Sunday rankings. THES rankings are Global not British ot American. And Harvard WAS placed higher than MIT in Science rankings.</p>
<p>hahaha jimbob, excellent idea :p</p>
<p>hereiam--You said:</p>
<p>
[quote]
guitarman, i think ur contradicting yourself.</p>
<p>most poeple who get into mit and harvard would choose harvard over mit since</p>
<p>most people who get into mit will be specializing science their whole lives, they wouldnt want to start that four years early.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Then I don't see how I'm contradicting myself. That bit about not wanting to specialize in science four years earlier than is necessary, about wanting to get a more diverse undergraduate education was my personal opinion--what I want. That's why I am going to Yale and not MIT or Caltech.</p>
<p>Now you seem to be applying that reasoning to the entire body of scientists choosing between Harvard and MIT, unless I'm misinterpreting "i said they'd choose harvard." Many people feel the same way as I do and make the same choice. Many people want to go into fields where Harvard is actually stronger than MIT. I know that's the case for astrophysics, and I know people who have done the same for chemistry and theoretical math. But that is not true in all cases. Your mistake is in saying "they wouldnt want to start that four years early." That is not true for very many people! If that were the case, MIT and Caltech would not be such popular choices among scientists. There are many other people who don't really care too strongly about the diverse undergrad experience and want to delve right into science at a school like MIT, and want to go into fields like engineering where the department and research opportunities at MIT are just stronger than at Harvard. Some people even like the social scene and group of people better at MIT than at Harvard. These are facts which you can't really deny. Many people--such as MIT2010, such as various people I know and have heard of--choose Harvard over MIT, and many make the opposite choice. Everyone has their own different reasons. I don't see any kind of contradiction here.</p>
<p>Harvardguy--Sorry about the Times mistake, I take that back :) Out of curiosity, was Harvard ranked higher in general science, or in specific disciplines?</p>
<p>@guitarmanars</p>
<p>there are many scientists who'd rather have diversity in undergrad.</p>
<p>jimbob1225-- I guess jimbob1225 does settle it ... <<no comments="">>
EVERYONE, read my last post and compare the data.
Don't personalize, just rationalize.</no></p>
<p>FYI, according to Byerly, MIT does the best against harvard approaching a 50/50 draw for cross admits. So to answer your question, about half of the students admitted to both harvard and MIT choose MIT and the other half choose Harvard.</p>
<p>harvardguy is just flaming</p>
<p>hereiam--Yes, I get that!! I am one of them. lol, did you not read my post at all? I said that very clearly. I also said that many would rather specialize. Not all scientists are the same. That is why MIT2010 and so many others chose MIT over Harvard, and that is not a bad choice at all. That's all I'm trying to say...am I still contradicting myself somehow?</p>
<p>Harvardguy--What last post? Your last post was correcting my error about the Times Supplement. If you have any data besides "The Times says Harvard is better than MIT in science", that would be great (the key problem with that is that while it may be true in many cases, it's extremely subjective and doesn't cover all fields).</p>
<p>you never contradicted yourself - hereiam is confused</p>
<p>haha I know I didn't contradict myself, I'm just trying to straighten out hereiam's confusion :)</p>
<p>One thing that is sparsely mentioned in the MIT/Harvard debate, by the way--MIT students can cross-register Harvard courses, a huge positive for scientists who love MIT but want more exposure than it can offer.</p>
<p>GuitarManARS-- You want more data? How about Academic Ranking of World Universities. It is highly biased towards Science (that is considered its criticism bye the way) and it does rank Harvard No. 1.
<a href="http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/ranking.htm%5B/url%5D">http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/ranking.htm</a></p>
<p>Am I on fire or what? ;)</p>
<p>Harvardguy--Do you listen to me at all? Is that data field-specific? No, it is not. An engineering major probably won't care if Harvard has a world famous geneticist. Like I said:</p>
<p><a href="the%20key%20problem%20with%20that%20is%20that%20while%20it%20may%20be%20true%20in%20many%20cases,%20it's%20extremely%20subjective%20and%20doesn't%20cover%20all%20fields">quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Just throwing more numbers of the same kind at me from a different source doesn't address that. For example, where does that study mention research opportunities for undergrads? How about placement into grad school? How about the number of professors teaching classes? Having a bunch of Nobel Laureates and Nature authors is great, but doesn't do much if you can't work in their labs and take their classes. That's what I mean by subjectivity--it's impossible to definitely say "This school is better at that."</p>
<p>As for the covering all fields thing, well, I've already mentioned that :)</p>
<p>haha oh man, i must be high.</p>
<p>i got nothign except respect for you guitarman. i wasn't trying ot offend you</p>
<p>haha, thanks hereiam :) Same here, sorry for the ranting replies, just wanted to clear up the confusion ;)</p>
<p>harvarguy
citing overall UNIVERSITY rankings is meaningless - as is your general argument, which is more opinion than substance it seems. There are many reasons to choose MIT over Harvard, especially for those interested in engineering. This shows in that 50% of student do choose such as path.</p>
<p>and you are not on fire</p>
<p>GuitarManARS-- What kind of justification is that?</p>
<p>Quote:
(the key problem with that is that while it may be true in many cases, it's extremely subjective and doesn't cover all fields)</p>
<p>I DO KNOW that it is subjective but for argument's sake I am giving you solid data and you are quoting the mighty "GuitarManARS".</p>
<p>Don't personalize, rationalize.</p>