Comparing Student Ability Across Schools

[prakharj]

Which is better? Whose students are more capable?

 

[jtbell]

The Illinois Institute of Technology is a pretty good school as far as I know, but MIT of course is almost in a category by itself.

A lot depends on what you specifically want to study.

 

[ych22]

I think the OP refers to Indian Institute of Technology. Regardless, MIT is in a class by itself.

 

[prakharj]

I havd gone through the top universities list, and found IIT(INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY)
far behind MIT n others.
But these ranking is affected by many factors like academics,fund, no of students and all.
I want to know, whose students are more skilled!

 

[atyy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Institute_of_Technology_Madras lists Subra Suresh as an IIT alumnus and former dean of engineering at MIT.

 

[maverick280857]

I havd gone through the top universities list, and found IIT(INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY)
far behind MIT n others.
But these ranking is affected by many factors like academics,fund, no of students and all.
I want to know, whose students are more skilled!

I do not think it is fair to compare the two. Certainly asking the question 'whose students are more skilled' seems very unfair to me. Both are very good places. There is one small difference...MIT is unique, whereas there are (esp now) many many IITs :-). So which one do you have in mind when you felt like making the comparison? Some IITs (if not all) were set up with very generous financial and academic aid from MIT, CMU, etc. IIT Kanpur for a number of its early years had many professors from MIT...

Why do you ask such a question phymatJ?

 

[prakharj]

My question is different from what you are answering.
I also think both schools are unique in their own way.
And i have no intention to compare them and say this is low and this is high.
I am just telling difference between the thinking of students taking as a whole studying in these schools.
MIT has a admission criteria which covers school grades,extra cirricular activities, project works, and some privately conducted exams like SAT and GRE. These things shows academic excellence, creativity as well as the extent of interest of the student in what he is doing. It is well rounded. Whereas in India, admission in any school just requires to write their respective entrance tests. Neither the project works nor their interest in the subject is considered. Student also study ,seeing the clearance of exams as their ultimate goal(again talking about average students) Students are grilled in different coaching classes which help them preparing for these entrance tests. IIT also knows that and cannot do much on it, because of less practical and less creative education system in india. Students from IITs are more likely to become a MD or CEO instead of a scientist or researcher, and that not a bad thing but this is the difference between MIT students and IIT students.

 

[Pengwuino]

Whereas in India, admission in any school just requires to write their respective entrance tests. Neither the project works nor their interest in the subject is considered. Student also study ,seeing the clearance of exams as their ultimate goal(again talking about average students) Students are grilled in different coaching classes which help them preparing for these entrance tests. IIT also knows that and cannot do much on it, because of less practical and less creative education system in india.

That's one of the key things that makes MIT and other high end universities different than this university you are talking about. I'm sure pretty much every applicant to MIT has scored 95%+ on the various standardized tests so they also have to have good extra-curricular activities and various things that show a lot of promise for the student. The SATs are taken by probably millions of people around the world and even the top 1% still accounts for 10,000s of people. MIT admits around 1500. Students need more than just top 1% in this test and that test, they have to show that they are special. Thus, you don't get students whose only quality is the ability to take 1 test.

In the US, there is definitely an unhealthy obsession with students getting that near perfect SAT score. However, again, test scores alone mean nothing when you're applying alongside 12,000 students who probably did just as phenomenally well on their standardized test as you did.

 

[twofish-quant]

MIT has a admission criteria which covers school grades,extra cirricular activities, project works, and some privately conducted exams like SAT and GRE. These things shows academic excellence, creativity as well as the extent of interest of the student in what he is doing. It is well rounded. Whereas in India, admission in any school just requires to write their respective entrance tests.

This is more of a difference between US university and Indian university admissions systems. Which one is "better" is a hard question to answer because you can't easily take US university admissions and put them into India, or Indian university admissions and put them into the US, without changing everything else.

Part of the problem with taking the US system and putting it into China is corruption. One reason Chinese university admissions is so highly test based is that its an anti-corruption mechanism. You see the tests, you see the scores, you get X, the limit is Y, you do or you don't get in. If you rely on subjective criterion to get in, then there is a lot of room for funny business.

It's also more equitable in some ways. Because all of the tests are public, you can read up the tests for the last ten years, get really good at taking the test, and you are in, and this is something that doesn't require much expense or teaching skill.

 

[twofish-quant]

I'm sure pretty much every applicant to MIT has scored 95%+ on the various standardized tests so they also have to have good extra-curricular activities and various things that show a lot of promise for the student.

Not true.

http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/apply/admissions_statistics/index.shtml
http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/highered/ra/sat/SATPercentileRanks.pdf

 

[twofish-quant]

Also the big difference between China/India and the US isn't the top schools. It's that the US has a very deep bench of universities. The top university in China is roughly of the same quality as the top university in the US, but the #120 university in the US is likely to be a lot better than the #120 university in China.

 

[maverick280857]

My question is different from what you are answering.

Your post has many generalizations, and this is why I said that the question is unfair. But now I think it is somewhat absurd to use these reasons in any argument for/against a university system, because the reasons are associated not with academics but with the social perception of it.

I am just telling difference between the thinking of students taking as a whole studying in these schools.
MIT has a admission criteria which covers school grades,extra cirricular activities, project works, and some privately conducted exams like SAT and GRE.

I think you are confusing what a university is, and what its perception is in the 'social circle' (which has nothing to do with academics, but which you use to base your arguments of comparison). When IITs started out about 50-60 years ago, not every tom dick and harry wanted to be an engineer or a scientist. Very few people were interested, and so those who did apply chose to prepare for the entrance test you are referring to. Over the years, the 'craze' to get into engineering increased exponentially and now, just about everyone wants to get in. How can you blame the IIT system for the manic symptoms that society exhibits anyway? :-)

These things shows academic excellence, creativity as well as the extent of interest of the student in what he is doing. It is well rounded. Whereas in India, admission in any school just requires to write their respective entrance tests.

Consider this: every science and math student in class 12 (final school year) in India studies calculus, Newtonian mechanics, electricity and magnetism all based strongly on calculus at a level that very closely competes with the freshman physics and math courses at a university in the US. So, this is "common knowledge" for every Indian science student. There is no honors program or advance placement system in India where you would exclusively learn these things. How do you judge people for entrance into engineering schools?

The SAT system cannot work in India: proficiency in English, although the medium of instruction in all the top engineering schools, cannot be considered as a good metric: there are many bright people with limited ability in a particular language but are extremely proficient in math or physics. Verbal reasoning on the SAT again is not a good metric: many people would do very well on it, as its standard is far below the average math standard in schools.

I think the existing entrance exam system suffers from many flaws. It is neither the best alternative to the SAT, nor the worst. There is scope for a lot of improvements. But in India, considering SAT to be a "well-rounded" test of someone's abilities would be very silly. The SAT (perhaps?) works well in the US because of the way the US school system is structured. In India, a test like the SAT would be a disaster.

Neither the project works nor their interest in the subject is considered.

If you are referring to what happens inside IITs, then this is wrong. Many people switch their majors, and very few end up really hating themselves. A large number of people enter IITs knowing they would not want to continue in engineering or science, from day 1. I suspect this is the same thing in the US, but with fewer students wanting to move out of science there, than in India.

Student also study ,seeing the clearance of exams as their ultimate goal(again talking about average students) Students are grilled in different coaching classes which help them preparing for these entrance tests.

True, but this is again a social problem, not an academic one. If anything, it should tell you how much these people look up to an IIT or NIT education, when they prepare for all these exams so vigorously.

Students from IITs are more likely to become a MD or CEO instead of a scientist or researcher, and that not a bad thing but this is the difference between MIT students and IIT students.

This is probably the biggest generalization I have heard about IIT/MIT. Off the charts

You are right when you say that the reasons for getting an IIT education are not academic or interest-driven in a large number of cases. That has to do with the fact that in India, a good education is considered a passport to success or at least a decent lifestyle/job assurance, etc. In India, without a bachelors degree or college education, it it is hard to find jobs and there are thousands of people with the 3 year bachelors of science degree or the 3 year bachelor of arts degree, who are not considered capable enough to be given the kind of jobs that someone with an engineering bachelors degree (or sometimes a science masters) will get very easily. This has to do with the fact that for a large number of years since IITs have come around the corner, the other universities have conveniently allowed their standards to degrade by comparison, and there has been little or no intervention from successive governments to boost their infrastructure, faculty, etc.

But you forget the fact that in the US, with possibly a few exceptions, most people who end up in college do so not to be socially acceptable but because they're genuinely interested in that major. There is not a mad race of nearly 10^6 applicants to prepare for what has now become a crazy multiple-choice entrance test designed to weed out the fast and efficient from the slow and less agile.

But after you clear the exam, the education and opportunities you get at an IIT are tremendous, and unparalleled in India. What you do after you receive such training is of course entirely up to you.

 

[twofish-quant]

This has to do with the fact that for a large number of years since IITs have come around the corner, the other universities have conveniently allowed their standards to degrade by comparison, and there has been little or no intervention from successive governments to boost their infrastructure, faculty, etc.

You have the same problem in China. In the 1980's and 1990's, the Chinese government expanded the university system massively, which caused quality issues as the universities that were expanded turned out to be not that good. Something that I've been trying to understand is how the US managed to avoid this problem in the 1960's when the US massively expanded its university system. I *think* that because the expansion in the 1960's was driven to fight the Russians, that you had some extremely powerful people that wanted to make absolutely sure that the engineers being graduated were top notch. Otherwise, it would be a bad thing if the bombs didn't work.

But you forget the fact that in the US, with possibly a few exceptions, most people who end up in college do so not to be socially acceptable but because they're genuinely interested in that major. There is not a mad race of nearly 10^6 applicants to prepare for what has now become a crazy multiple-choice entrance test designed to weed out the fast and efficient from the slow and less agile.

That's an odd generalization. Most people that I know that went to college did it because "that was the thing to do." One thing about the US university system (which I think is a good thing) is that it's pretty easy to get into college. If you want to get a bachelor's degree in the US, you can.

This means that there are a lot of people in US colleges that aren't terribly interested in learning.

But after you clear the exam, the education and opportunities you get at an IIT are tremendous, and unparalleled in India. What you do after you receive such training is of course entirely up to you.

One thing that I think MIT does a good job at doing is to get students to think about *how* they want to change the world. Once you get an MIT bachelors, you will be able to change the world. You have that power. The big question is how will you use that power.

 

[Chairman Lmao]

My question is different from what you are answering.
I also think both schools are unique in their own way.
And i have no intention to compare them and say this is low and this is high.
I am just telling difference between the thinking of students taking as a whole studying in these schools.
MIT has a admission criteria which covers school grades,extra cirricular activities, project works, and some privately conducted exams like SAT and GRE. These things shows academic excellence, creativity as well as the extent of interest of the student in what he is doing. It is well rounded. Whereas in India, admission in any school just requires to write their respective entrance tests. Neither the project works nor their interest in the subject is considered. Student also study ,seeing the clearance of exams as their ultimate goal(again talking about average students) Students are grilled in different coaching classes which help them preparing for these entrance tests. IIT also knows that and cannot do much on it, because of less practical and less creative education system in india. Students from IITs are more likely to become a MD or CEO instead of a scientist or researcher, and that not a bad thing but this is the difference between MIT students and IIT students.

MIT had ~16,000 applicants last year.
http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/apply/admissions_statistics/index.shtml

In comparison, more than 400,000 students take the JEE every year. I can't even imagine how any institute can read 400,000 CV's, recommendation letters etc.. and decide who is worthy of being admitted.

 

[MATLABdude]

[...]
Part of the problem with taking the US system and putting it into China is corruption. One reason Chinese university admissions is so highly test based is that its an anti-corruption mechanism. You see the tests, you see the scores, you get X, the limit is Y, you do or you don't get in. If you rely on subjective criterion to get in, then there is a lot of room for funny business.[...]

I remember when I was taking the SATs years ago (around the turn of the century ) and realized that India got singled out in the international test center section--basically, there were reduced frequencies and longer wait times since people were flown into administer / guard the tests, and tests were flown out for evaluation. I have no idea if these conditions still apply, or have been expanded to other countries.

Not true.

http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/apply/admissions_statistics/index.shtml
http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/highered/ra/sat/SATPercentileRanks.pdf

It seems insane that 25% of MIT freshman have perfect math scores (assuming I'm reading that correctly, which might not be the case since my math score was only 730 or 740 when I took it...) It's interesting that the tale does go into the low-to-mid 600s in individual SAT components, but am I correct in assuming that the more popular and MIT-stereotype majors (e.g. course 6, EE / CS, or course 8, Physics) take the upper end of the range as opposed to, say, the humanities (course 21)?

For those that don't know what I'm talking about, MIT Subject Listing & Schedule (yes, I discovered the existence of these from Dilbert's Wikipedia biography):
http://student.mit.edu/catalog/index.cgi

 

[1994Bhaskar]

There's a point.I'm myself an IIT aspirant and merely 16 years old, and still gave the entrance (which was a few days ago).You won't believe how much do we have to study!Many guys just don't understand the concepts.They just think science as a bunch of formula's which we learn to solve problem's.But the basics are always ignored.Many a times in old IIT entrance papers one may find many sums from even the engineering level-& even today such question's appear some times.

 

[Mépris]

One thing that I think MIT does a good job at doing is to get students to think about *how* they want to change the world. Once you get an MIT bachelors, you will be able to change the world. You have that power. The big question is how will you use that power.

This could the kind of phrase I'd read in Spider-Man comic when Pete is whining about his great power and his responsibility because of the power. No real contribution to thread, but I found that somewhat funny.

On a more serious note though - you have me intrigued. What exactly do you mean by 'power'? What exactly is it in the MIT way of things which gets its graduates into that frame of mind, which if I correctly assumed, is what you mean by 'power'?

OP, you might want to search this forum. This topic has been discussed before, IIRC.

 

[klackity]

Twofish is the local MIT advocate.

MIT and RPI both have these reputations of setting the bar incredibly high. Graduates of both tended to be incredibly well-prepared as a result.

But I think there are two things to consider when you listen to Twofish.

1) That's the past. MIT has kind of evolved more into ivy-like institution. I doubt that the environment is the same as it was when Twofish was there. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that IIT has far more of that kind of environment nowadays than MIT.

2) Twofish is incredibly biased towards liking that particular experience, having successfully gone through it. There are other approaches to education, which may work just as well for you.

I'll give you an example of a different kind of environment. Where I go (NYU), there is really no bar set for me at all. There is no pressure to do one thing, or another. Most of the other students are just going about their own business, which is very different from my business. You have to figure out for yourself what you want. For me, it's made me much more independent in learning than a typical MIT student would have been back in the day. (Of course, I'm probably lazier than the typical MIT student back in the day).

The downside is that students who don't figure out how to be independent at NYU just kind of flounder around. At MIT back in the day, that wouldn't happen, because you'd be pressured by the environment into learning a lot of physics.

But the two types of environments have their advantages/disadvantages. I have WAAAY more academic freedom than perhaps any other college student in the nation. I'm allowed to take graduate math courses here, with almost no questions asked. It's no longer a matter of, "What course do I NEED to take and do well in", but more a matter of "What course would be good for me?"

 

[twofish-quant]

On a more serious note though - you have me intrigued. What exactly do you mean by 'power'? What exactly is it in the MIT way of things which gets its graduates into that frame of mind, which if I correctly assumed, is what you mean by 'power'?

MIT is an essential part of the US military-industrial complex, and much of the purpose of MIT is to allow the US to maintain global economic and military domination.

You can read Chomsky for the details, but if you get in a situation in which no one in the US knows how to built a hydrogen bomb, a jet fighter, or a better microchip so that you can chat with your friends through companies that are US controlled, then the US is finished as a world power.

Part of the reason that MIT graduates get into this frame of mind is that you just meet people from the military-industrial complex. The provost when I was there was later appointed Director of the CIA. One of the professors that I knew later became Secretary of the Air Force. You have people in corporate boards, cabinet officials, and think tanks, and so a lot of what happens is that you look at someone and think "well if so-and-so can become Director of the CIA, then so can I if that's what I want." What's more is that you end up knowing 20 year old people that will end up running companies and governments by the time they are 50.

One thing that gives you an idea of what MIT "feels" like is the X-Files. I don't think that there is a conspiracy hiding UFO's and aliens, but if there "were" such as conspiracy, MIT would be in the center of it. One thing that I found odd was how some of the people in the X-files seemed so much like professors that I knew at MIT, and then I found out his brother was a professor there. There is a professor that I knew at MIT that looked and talks a lot like the "well-manicured man."

 

[twofish-quant]

1) That's the past. MIT has kind of evolved more into ivy-like institution. I doubt that the environment is the same as it was when Twofish was there. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that IIT has far more of that kind of environment nowadays than MIT.

One thing about MIT is that you never truly leave.

Things change. One of the big shifts in MIT has happened between 1990 and 2010 is the shift between "old school" physics/mathematics and "new school" biology/management. Also, you have shifts because of the president. Since I was there you had two presidents, Vest, who was an engineer from a state universities, and Hockfield, who is a biologist from an Ivy.

Also, there is this weird interaction with Harvard. MIT looks at Harvard in a much the same way that Canada looks at the United States. Once of the core bits of the Canadian identity is that it's not the US, and one of the core bits of the MIT identity is that it's not Harvard.

There's also this conflict between "elitism"/"populism" and "science"/"humanities" that has driven the place since it's founding in 1861.

2) Twofish is incredibly biased towards liking that particular experience, having successfully gone through it. There are other approaches to education, which may work just as well for you.

Or better. Or worse.

I'll give you an example of a different kind of environment. Where I go (NYU), there is really no bar set for me at all.

Also the history of NYU is *VERY* interesting. The merger with Brooklyn Poly quite interesting as is what they are doing in Shanghai and Dubai.

For me, it's made me much more independent in learning than a typical MIT student would have been back in the day. (Of course, I'm probably lazier than the typical MIT student back in the day).

There's a lot of competition at MIT which can be quite healthy or unhealthy depending on how it is structured. You have the 2.70 design competition, and a lot of MIT is sort of like that, and this competitive atmosphere keeps going after you leave (I just founded a $20 million company. Well I just founded a $50 million company. etc. etc. etc.)

Also I think that MIT students are quite independent learners.

The downside is that students who don't figure out how to be independent at NYU just kind of flounder around. At MIT back in the day, that wouldn't happen, because you'd be pressured by the environment into learning a lot of physics.

Or not. Some people at MIT end up hating physics and end up doing something else. Also, it's not external pressure. It's internal pressure. The main thing that the faculty does is to keep students from overworking themselves.

One thing that makes MIT different from the other universities I've seen, is that I want to learn physics. That's fine, but I don't want to learn *ONLY* physics. I crossed University of Florida off my list of schools to go do when I told a dean that I was interested in majoring in physics and creative writing, and he thought I was joking.

I'm allowed to take graduate math courses here, with almost no questions asked. It's no longer a matter of, "What course do I NEED to take and do well in", but more a matter of "What course would be good for me?"

MIT courses with some exceptions aren't particularly good. The general institute requirement courses (8.01, 8.02, 18.01, 18.02) are extremely good. Everything else was quite uneven.

But you don't go to MIT for the courses. The thing that I was able to get that was worth the tuition was an e-mail account and internet access.

Now this might seem odd. Everyone gets an e-mail account. True in 2011. But I went to MIT in 1987 when most people hadn't heard of the internet. So they gave me an e-mail account, internet access, and then let me figure out what to do with it, and I taught myself C++, and so in 1991, when some guy in Switzerland came up with the WWW, I was one of the first people in the world to install WWW and I taught myself basic web programming two years before anyone else had heard of the web.

You look at the stuff that is going on at MIT, and think "someday everyone will be doing this". "Yeah, but we were the first."

 

[atyy]

One thing that gives you an idea of what MIT "feels" like is the X-Files. I don't think that there is a conspiracy hiding UFO's and aliens, but if there "were" such as conspiracy, MIT would be in the center of it.

Someone once told me MIT doesn't do any secret research (It's all at Lincoln Labs). Is that untrue?

 

[twofish-quant]

Someone once told me MIT doesn't do any secret research (It's all at Lincoln Labs). Is that untrue?

Lincoln Labs is part of MIT. (see http://www.ll.mit.edu/). There's also Draper Labs which is technically separate from MIT.

 

[atyy]

Lincoln Labs is part of MIT. (see http://www.ll.mit.edu/). There's also Draper Labs which is technically separate from MIT.

Ha, ha, then that is so super top secret that it's hiding in plain sight!

 

[atyy]

Anyway, is it true that no secret research goes on at MIT except at Lincoln Labs - specifically, I heard that MIT (with the exception of Lincoln Labs) will not accept any funding that does not allow the results of the research to be published in a peer reviewed journal?

 

[maverick280857]

MIT had ~16,000 applicants last year.
http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/apply/admissions_statistics/index.shtml

In comparison, more than 400,000 students take the JEE every year. I can't even imagine how any institute can read 400,000 CV's, recommendation letters etc.. and decide who is worthy of being admitted.

To get into an IIT (and I am referring to the 7 or 8 established ones, not the N that have recently sprung up), you need to (a) clear cutoff marks on the JEE, (b) get a 'rank' out of those 400,000 which is between 1 and probably 4000 (I could be wrong about specifics, subject to the current intake). This is the ONLY criterion to get in, and of course you need to have passed the school certification exam with a minimum aggregate of 60% (or maybe more, again I don't know the exact rules now). Ref: http://www.jee.iitk.ac.in/eligibility.php .

Recommendation letters, CVs, are not asked for, and your rank on the JEE (if you qualify) is all that decides whether you are "worthy of being admitted". This is one fundamental difference between undergrad colleges in the US and IIT in India. And I think its a significant difference, because it conveys the perceptions of the faculty about the incoming students' abilities.

That's an odd generalization. Most people that I know that went to college did it because "that was the thing to do." One thing about the US university system (which I think is a good thing) is that it's pretty easy to get into college. If you want to get a bachelor's degree in the US, you can.

Perhaps you are only referring to the fraction of students you met ? I always thought it was difficult and expensive to go to college in the US. But I could be wrong. In India, higher education is government subsidized, and IITs and NITs are relatively affordable compared to private colleges.

This means that there are a lot of people in US colleges that aren't terribly interested in learning.

If this is really true, then it mirrors the situation in India, not just in IITs but also in other regional universities and colleges. I don't think it is a reflection on the universities (as the original poster seemed to suggest) though.

Twofish-quant, a lot of what you say about MIT used to be true about IIT. When my father was an undergrad at IIT, almost all his professors were from MIT, Case Institute, CMU or Stanford. The education was well rounded, and a 5 year undergrad in engineering included courses as diverse as psychology and quantum mechanics to transistor circuit design and fluid mechanics. Nobody wanted to become an expert in just engineering or math.The labs involved taking apart a car engine (and if you were lucky, even an aircraft engine). But after they switched to a 4 year bachelors (the "standard" thing), a lot of things got compromised and over the years, the faculty originally involved with the system also left/retired, and the newer people did not perhaps believe in the holistic diverse educational culture, but rather were products of the age of specialization (as most are in my generation). It is good to know from your descriptions that MIT, which was an a sense the father of at least one of the IITs, has stuck to its roots and traditions.