MIT Grades, NASA & Your Future

[twofish-quant]

But is there any evidence that they do hate their schools? Maybe they just say that to maintain the mysique.

I hate MIT with fiery, intense burning passion. But its a weird sort of hatred. Hate isn't a necessarily a bad thing. If I didn't hate MIT as much as I did, I wouldn't be as motivated to try to improve it if it's possible, or try to invent something better than MIT if it's not.

One reason I hate MIT is that its so damn elitist. One thing that you learn at MIT is to hate elitist that isn't based on technical competency and earned attributes. This creates some paradoxes because MIT sits in the center of the power elite.

 

[twofish-quant]

Wait, I'm confused. Why is the shuttle program ending?

First shuttle was launched in 1981. That's old. We need to do something else, and one of the major lessons of the shuttle program is that winged spacecraft don't make sense.

Does that mean... No more astronauts.

No more US astronauts launched from US spacecraft for a few years. The Russians are still sending people into space and will be a taxi for US astronauts, and China is going forward.

The US manned space program is this unbelievable mess, talking about why is long and depressing, but you should read up on its history so that you can figure out what to do with it.

 

[atyy]

http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-243-544--13448-1-1X2-2,00.html

I'm a Runner: Dorothy Metcalf-Lindenburger
"Before she was an astronaut, Metcalf-Lindenburger taught high school science. Her first mission launches March 18, 2010."

 

[twofish-quant]

Maybe I emphasized MIT a little in the first post. I do want to become an astronaut, but if NASA won't exist or have space missions by the time i qualify, then what's the point in trying?

Because what else are you going to do? Also how the space program works is something that people decide, and so you can learn to change the future.

Will NASA still have space missions in 15 years?

No idea. Future is unwritten. You'll have some role in writing it.

 

[atyy]

How about http://www.virgingalactic.com/ ?

 

[Fuz]

First shuttle was launched in 1981. That's old. We need to do something else, and one of the major lessons of the shuttle program is that winged spacecraft don't make sense.

Haha, I understand. What do you mean we need to do something else? I mean, what else?

 

[atyy]

My belief is that the US manned space program is a total mess and is going to go nowhere without a good firm kick in the rear end. One thing on my list of TODO's, is to convince whoever is in charge of China to give a speech saying that China is going have an astronaut plant a Chinese flag on Mars, and if anyone else wants to get there first, they are welcome to try.

You are one of the few physicists I've met who hold such a view. Most seem to oppose manned space flight - too expensive for too little return - much better spent on whatever's after the LHC. Perhaps this is just a cultural thing (ie. restricted to particle physicists), since I've heard that it was something about space that did the SSC in. Steven Weinberg said that Clinton didn't have the political capital to support two major programmes in Texas, it was between the SSC and some NASA thing, and Ann Richards chose the NASA project. In the same talk he told the amusing anecdote (well, probably not amusing to someone who actually worked on the SSC) that someone had told him that before the site of the SSC is chosen, congressmen from 50 states would support it, but after it's chosen, 49 states would be against!

 

[twofish-quant]

You are one of the few physicists I've met who hold such a view.

Yup. The issue is that physicists see this as a zero sum game in which more funding for astronauts means less funding for unmanned probes.

Steven Weinberg said that Clinton didn't have the political capital to support two major programmes in Texas, it was between the SSC and some NASA thing, and Ann Richards chose the NASA project.

The problem here is that after the USSR fell, there was no interest group in support of the SSC, whereas you have several very powerful lobbies (aerospace companies and the military) that were in support of the space station.

That someone had told him that before the site of the SSC is chosen, congressmen from 50 states would support it, but after it's chosen, 49 states would be against!

Yup, and I have some interesting stories to tell. I once saw a DOE staffer talking to a staff member for a senator. The conversation was:

DOE staff: Will the senator support the SSC if it is not in state X?
Senate staff: Yes. The senator thinks that it's an important project which he will support if not in his state.

That conversation took 20 minutes. One hard part was that the DOE staffer couldn't explicitly say that the SSC would not be in state X, so they had to talk in hypotheticals and code words. Fascinating to watch.

One problem with the SSC is that there isn't a supply chain. The thing about the space station is that the pork gets spread around. For the SSC there is just one place.

 

[G01]

I hate MIT with fiery, intense burning passion. But its a weird sort of hatred. Hate isn't a necessarily a bad thing. If I didn't hate MIT as much as I did, I wouldn't be as motivated to try to improve it if it's possible, or try to invent something better than MIT if it's not.

One reason I hate MIT is that its so damn elitist. One thing that you learn at MIT is to hate elitist that isn't based on technical competency and earned attributes. This creates some paradoxes because MIT sits in the center of the power elite.

Just in case people think TF-Q is putting on an act here:

I'm a grad student (not at MIT, but in the Boston area), and both of my roommates graduated from MIT and one is a current grad student there. Both of them would immediately, without any hesitation, agree with everything in the above quote by twofish...

To the OP:

I wish you the best luck with your MIT application. Boston is a great place to go to school and spend your 20's-30's. However, please don't limit yourself to only MIT. I'm worried you are filling your head with this romantic view of MIT that isn't really true, and then taking an "MIT or bust" attitude.

Just remember MIT, the Ivy League, and other prestigious big-name schools do not have a monopoly on great education.

 

[Fizex]

Why are you guys still discussing MIT when that isn't the main goal? The kid wants to be an astronaut; not specifically an MIT graduate. His goal wasn't to become the smartest person either so your discussion of academic rigor isn't relevant. The best chance you can have of being thrown into space is to go the the Air Force Academy or the U.S. Navel Academy (both of which have graduated more astronauts than MIT). Then even if NASA doesn't want to send you into space, at least you get to fly other cool things. You can do this or become incredibly wealthy and buy a ticket on a private space company like SpaceX to send you out there.

NASA might have some other other human space missions but none have been approved. Obama doesn't want NASA to ferry humans anymore but the good thing about the U.S. is that he doesn't stay in power for long. Take a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle#Retirement_and_legacy

 

[mathwonk]

Have you considered the possibility that your honors history prof is rather like the profs at MIT? Has he ever given anyone an A or B? Maybe this man is your best chance to actually prepare for MIT coursework. You might ask him for guidance, or an outside project, that will help you enhance your writing ability nearer the level he is looking for in an honors student. I.e. try improving yourself rather than worrying about your grade. the more highly qualified you are the better your chances the rest of your life. This is more important than getting into a prestigious school you may not be ready for.

 

[gb7nash]

Also this is a good example of the culture that MIT teaches. Someone from another school that thinks "I want to be an astronaut" is likely to be told to just give up, and if you have enough people telling you that you should give up, then you will, because you will believe that its the right thing to do.

It's simple supply and demand. Looking at the past, the US space mission hasn't really been doing much. If a lot of people are deadset on becoming an astronaut, only a few will be successful, if that. If the OP has other marketable alternatives he can fall back on, I would tell him to strongly consider him focusing on that first. However, if he's deadset on becoming an astronaut, then go for it.

Someone from MIT, is more likely to look reality in the face and think "so what keeps me from being an astronaut, and how do I fix things so that I can do it." If you have to become a Congressman, start your own astronaut company (like SpaceX), become an air force general, then you learn that you can do that. After all, you get to meet people that are Congressmen, who have started their own companies, and air force generals, and after seeing them, you think to yourself "well I can do that... After all I survived MIT."

It all depends on your background. For someone that's young and fresh out of college, it's great to try new things(trying to become an astronaut) and some risks pay off. Unfortunately, it's not as easy as saying, "I can change the world, let me start my own company". Many people have families, are older, have mortgages to pay off and one mistake could cripple them. Also, a lot of people come from different backgrounds and are struggling to make endsmeat with today's economy. It's much safer to know you're getting a degree that can be put to good use. So it really depends on a lot of different factors.

 

[twofish-quant]

It's simple supply and demand. Looking at the past, the US space mission hasn't really been doing much. If a lot of people are deadset on becoming an astronaut, only a few will be successful, if that

If a lot of people want to be an astronaut, then there is money to be made by shooting people into space. The US manned space program is a total mess, but rather than accept that fact, the OP could be in a position to change it.

If the OP has other marketable alternatives he can fall back on, I would tell him to strongly consider him focusing on that first.

I strongly advise people not to take the idea of "marketable" serious. You become marketable by creating a market on your own terms.

For someone that's young and fresh out of college, it's great to try new things(trying to become an astronaut) and some risks pay off. Unfortunately, it's not as easy as saying, "I can change the world, let me start my own company".

It's not easy. Starting your own company is one of the most difficult things that you can do. The hard part is that you need to be extremely well capitalized and have a large amount of knowledge about the area that you are starting a business in.

But one thing about MIT is that you meet people that have started or are trying to start their own companies. While I was there, all of the professors that I knew had some project going on in their garage, and some of them hit home runs (Bose speakers or RSA cryptography). Talking to people that have done this, gets you knowledge on how to do it, and more importantly you think to yourself "if X can do it, so can I."

Many people have families, are older, have mortgages to pay off and one mistake could cripple them.

I have a wife and kids. Also getting a mortgage is often a *huge* mistake. Mortgages are one way that banks and the power elite keep people under control. If you set up a system so that most people are in a financial situation such that one mistake could cripple them, they this is a way that the "people that run the world" end up keeping people under control. It's not a bad system once you realize what is going on, but most people don't.

One thing that I'm finding is that the older I get, the more risks I can take. I know a lot more about business and physics than I did twenty years ago. I've kept my debt under control, so that each year my bank account grows. At some point, I'll get bored with finance and decide to do something different. Maybe investing in space tourism. Who knows?

Also, a lot of people come from different backgrounds and are struggling to make ends meat with today's economy.

And they are missing the point that they aren't making the big decisions that determine what happens.

It's much safer to know you're getting a degree that can be put to good use.

Unfortunately, that's a total lie. It's false safety.

The lie that people tell students is that if you get degree X, be a good corporate cog, and don't rock the boat, then we'll give you prizes like a good job. Just do what you are told, don't think, don't complain, and we will take care of you. Unfortunately, it's a lie, and if you stop thinking, you won't realize its a lie. The system is very good at lying to people. They are so good that they can lie, and you can't find anyone that can take responsibility for lying to you.

While you are being a good little corporate cog, they are talking about moving your job to Pakistan. They'll fire you, and then they'll blame you for not working hard enough, and meanwhile they collect the money, and you are on the street, and they've brainwashed you enough so that you think it's your fault.

The power elite has a problem. On the one hand, its a lot easier to run the world, if most people are brainwashed into being couch potatoes that consume what the commercials say that they should consume, and take mortgages and credit card debt that they can't afford so that they are forever slaves to the bank.

On the other hand, if you train *everyone* to be that way, there is no one to take over once you die. One of the purposes of MIT is to train people to run the world, and to keep the United States in control of the world. So they power elite has to encourage some people to think and to ask questions and not be a couch potato.

If you want to be an astronaut, it's really important that you understand who making the decisions about how many astronauts there will be and how those decisions are made, and it's really important that, and to be able to *change* the decision if you don't like it.

It's important because the people and processes that decide how many astronauts there are are also the same people and processes that decide how many computer scientists there are, how many plumbers there are, and whether to move your job from the US to Pakistan. If you just close your eyes and trust the system, then you are going to be totally out of luck, when the system decides that your job should be done in Pakistan.