What should I do to get into MIT, CalTech, etc?

[Cuauhtemoc]

Yup. One problem with life is that there isn't a reset button. I'd be curious to see what would have happened had I gone to big state school, or if I had focused a bit more and gotten myself in the Harvard grad school.

Really?
I know tons of totally ignorant people that tend to richer than PhD's, a lot richer in fact.
You have a MIT degree and are unemployed, it didn't help much I think.
To be wealthy in modern society you need a lot more than good grades and a college diploma.
Many vastly sucessful businessman dropped out of college and are still billionaires. They may be exceptions but there are tons of not so extreme cases of average achievers getting a good amount of money.

 

[mheslep]

Doomed? Do you really remain open to the belief that people are doomed if they don't get into the right schools and meet the right people?

Yup

Well I hope that sentiment doesn't stem from living in NYC and reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bright_Lights,_Big_City_(novel)" novels.

The problem is that I've been unemployed

So have I. Though the 'doomed' sentiment took hold for a moment when important relationships crumbled or tragedy struck those near and dear to me, I never felt so because of my employment situation or the particular graduate school I did or did not attend.

and I know people have been in worse employment situations than me. It stinks.

Yes, it can be hard.

Also, even when you are employed, you are just keeping your head above water, with no savings which stinks when something bad happens.

One writer that I read that made a lot of sense to me is Karl Marx. His basic idea was that in a unfettered social system, the rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer.

Making common cause with criticism of an 'unfettered social system' suggests a preference for the so called 'third way' of European social democracy. It is called the 'third way' because Marx's proscriptions would not allow a market system to exist at all, not even mildly unfettered. Anyway, aside from periods of revolution/war/economic depression, it is not the case that the poor get poorer over time in the US, not in any objective manner.

 

[twofish-quant]

I know tons of totally ignorant people that tend to richer than PhD's, a lot richer in fact.

Curiously I don't. Most of the Ph.D.'s I know of are loaded, and the people that I know that are richer than Ph.D.'s aren't stupid.

You have a MIT degree and are unemployed, it didn't help much I think.

I have an MIT degree and I was unemployed. I'm rolling in money right now. But a lot of that was just getting lucky and meeting the right people.

 

[twofish-quant]

Well I hope that sentiment doesn't stem from living in NYC

No it comes from living in NYC and working in Wall Street, and seeing scary amounts of money going around.

Making common cause with criticism of an 'unfettered social system' suggests a preference for the so called 'third way' of European social democracy.

There are about thirty different ways of running an economy. The thing that I think will work is pretty heavy taxation of people like me to support basic science and technology. Curiously, I happen to be a big fan of Ronald Reagan since he increased the defense budget and shot the budget deficit to heck which is what the country needed.

It is called the 'third way' because Marx's proscriptions would not allow a market system to exist at all, not even mildly unfettered.

Marx argued that capitalism was inherently unstable, and a lot of the what people were trying to figure out in the early 20th century was to use socialism to save capitalism. Curiously, one big problem with Marx is that he was insufficiently cynical. What would happen once you have a revolution is that you'd end up with a new ruling class that was worse than the old one.

Anyway, aside from periods of revolution/war/economic depression, it is not the case that the poor get poorer over time in the US, not in any objective manner.

I'm terribly, terribly worried that the US has just entered a period of Japanese economic stagnation. The problem with Japan is that it wasn't dramatic, and after a while, people just accepted what was going on as normal. One thing about Japan is that there are few desperately poor people in Japan. It's just that the country has ended up "stuck."

The trouble is that it feels as if the middle class is disappearing, and that's a bad thing. Something that is interesting is that you are looking at the career choices of Ph.D.'s, and either you are making totally insane amounts of money on Wall Street or you are waiting tables in restaurants. There's nothing in the middle, which scares the living daylights out of me because this is what Marx said would happen.

 

[mheslep]

...There are about thirty different ways of running an economy. The thing that I think will work is pretty heavy taxation of people like me to support basic science and technology.

Unless you keep your money under the matress, I think what will work is what you (and I) are doing now - investing in securities which in turn finances investment. Higher taxation must reduce that investment. More importantly, and as my sig suggests, growing the government's scope and influence makes it more of a mandatory influence target for finance firms (Fannie/Freddie/Wall St). Of course if one wants to finance new science and technology directly, there are VC funds on every corner.

Curiously, I happen to be a big fan of Ronald Reagan since he increased the defense budget and shot the budget deficit to heck which is what the country needed...

Eh, with the help of Tip O'Neil et al and their invention of the 'take it or leave it Mr President' omnibus budget, hence Reagan's campaign for the line item budget veto ...

 

[jtbell]

Please take political/economic arguments to another forum: P&WA or maybe Social Sciences.

 

[Anonymous217]

I dislike how "advice to get in top schools!" threads always digress into the "prestige v. top school legitimacy/etc." arguments. Can't we simply advise the OP without questioning his true intentions?

 

[inception7]

I dislike how "advice to get in top schools!" threads always digress into the "prestige v. top school legitimacy/etc." arguments. Can't we simply advise the OP without questioning his true intentions?

Thumbs up! I definitely agree with everything you've said!

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

Curiously I don't. Most of the Ph.D.'s I know of are loaded, and the people that I know that are richer than Ph.D.'s aren't stupid.



I have an MIT degree and I was unemployed. I'm rolling in money right now. But a lot of that was just getting lucky and meeting the right people.

Oh well, good for you.
Maybe it's just me but politicians and businessman seem to do better around here without even a college degree than phd's in astrophysics.

 

[TMFKAN64]

In general, the way to make money is to pursue money. I am certain that the most successful business people who didn't get a college degree are vastly richer than the most successful Ph.D. astrophysicists. (Even if we eliminate the household names here.)

I'm equally certain that the average Ph.D. astrophysicist is doing better than the average college dropout.

It's all statistics. Buy a lottery ticket, you could get rich!

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

In general, the way to make money is to pursue money. I am certain that the most successful business people who didn't get a college degree are vastly richer than the most successful Ph.D. astrophysicists. (Even if we eliminate the household names here.)

I'm equally certain that the average Ph.D. astrophysicist is doing better than the average college dropout.

It's all statistics. Buy a lottery ticket, you could get rich!

I know, but I believe the average college dropout isn't very clever and so he didn't fare well,in college or business or in a job, but if you have the skills to get a Phd is it worth to lose years of your life doing academic research instead of venturing in business? In terms of money of course, I know people who have phd's because they love studying or want to be academics.
I just don't feel like getting an Ph.D. in astrophysics is the way to become rich, there are easier,faster routes, that don't need a lot of luck like a lottery ticket.
I think getting a degree in engineering and getting into industry is a lot easier, for example.

 

[twofish-quant]

In general, the way to make money is to pursue money. I am certain that the most successful business people who didn't get a college degree are vastly richer than the most successful Ph.D. astrophysicists. (Even if we eliminate the household names here.)

If we eliminate the household names, then I'm not sure this is true. The issue here is that people that startup entrepreneur companies tend to get a lot of press, whereas astrophysics Ph.D.'s that end up being hedge fund managers or managing directors tend to be anonymous. The biggest name in Ph.D.'s that is reasonably famous is Jim Simmons.

One other thing that needs to be considered is that there are very few Ph.D. astrophysicists to begin with.

Also one reason I like my current job and hated some of my previous ones, is that there is less of a glass ceiling. I probably won't ever be a managing director, but it's nice to look at someone that is like you that has gotten there and dream/be insanely jealous. At the other jobs that I had, all of my bosses were MBA-types, so there was no real chance of promotion. In my current position, my bosses bosses boss is somewhat older but has a Ph.D. in astrophysics.

I think that explains why people are so nervous about getting into the right school. It's not that you are likely to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, but the idea is that if you don't do X, then you have no chance at all. Once you realize that things aren't going to get better, then it gets quite depressing.

It's also particularly bad, since there is part of me that still acts like that eager high school student that wants to get the prize. Once I thought that I was somewhere that I got everything that you could get, I got really depressed.

Also, I'm just providing information here. Maybe my purpose in life is as a warning for what not to do. :-) :-) :-)

Finally, one big problem with the academic system is that students don't have contact with a diverse set of Ph.D.'s. People assume that physics Ph.D.'s are starving because most of the Ph.D.'s that people have day to day contact at the university is either a professor or a starving and slightly bitter graduate student. People don't realize that while not every astrophysics Ph.D. makes $1M/year, there isn't a small number that do.

 

[twofish-quant]

I dislike how "advice to get in top schools!" threads always digress into the "prestige v. top school legitimacy/etc." arguments. Can't we simply advise the OP without questioning his true intentions?

No. :-) :-) :-)

Seriously, some of us have gone through the prestige school rat race, and what I'm telling you is basically what I wish someone had told me in 1986. The one advantage that you have is that you have is that the internet basically didn't exist in 1986.

If you just care about getting into top schools, then there is no magic bullet. There are a ton of books on the topic, and they basically say more or less the same thing. The only thing that I have to add here is that *dumb luck* is a huge factor. There are so many good candidates and so few spots that you can do everything right and still not get in, while you can make mistakes and get in.

If you get in...

Something about MIT is that if you get in then for the first time in your life, you will be "average" or even "below average." In high school, I didn't know anyone that was smarter than me, but at MIT, I wasn't particularly smart, and I knew tons of people that were just better (and sometimes a lot better) at math than I was.

It will hit you in the gut, the first time you take a test and instead of getting the standard "99" score you are used to in high school, you'll end up with a 60 which turns out to be class average, and you are working ten hours a day just to try to get your grade up to a B. Personally, I learned to "enjoy the pain" in some sick masochistic way, but I know of a lot of people that just fell apart.

You will have bad days in which you ask "why am I here?" "what am I doing?" "is this really worth it?", and you'll get through those bad days if you gave some thought to those questions before you step on campus.

Also, once you start being hypercompetive, it's hard to stop. I'm working as hard today, and as stressed I was in high school. If you don't mind this as a way of life, that's great, but don't kid yourself into thinking that there is some pot of gold at the end of the road. There is no end of the road until you die.

If you don't get in...

Then you can help fix the problem. Something that the world needs is driven people to improve their environment. There is nothing about MIT that can't be duplicated elsewhere, and if didn't get into MIT, and your reaction is "screw them, I'll build something better" then that's the spirit that we need more of.

 

[Anonymous217]

No. :-) :-) :-)
...
Then you can help fix the problem. Something that the world needs is driven people to improve their environment. There is nothing about MIT that can't be duplicated elsewhere, and if didn't get into MIT, and your reaction is "screw them, I'll build something better" then that's the spirit that we need more of.

Great post. You offer a lot of useful information for deciding whether to attend a top school or not to. However, rather than address these problem in singular topics, why not create a sticky addressing the issue? That way, you won't need to repeat the same information (as you probably have many times), and you can centralize the "debate".

 

[twofish-quant]

if you have the skills to get a Phd is it worth to lose years of your life doing academic research instead of venturing in business?

For me, the answer was not only yes, but HELL, YES! Much of it is that I don't see doing academic research as "losing years of my life" any more than I see industrial research as "losing years of my life."

I just don't feel like getting an Ph.D. in astrophysics is the way to become rich, there are easier, faster routes, that don't need a lot of luck like a lottery ticket.

Sure, but I hate fast and easy. I like challenge, and so if someone just gave me money, it wouldn't be any "fun". I am a tightwad, cheapskate that hates spending money. I also don't like gambling. If I put money in a slot machine, and get a ton of money, that's also not "fun."

I get some sort of weird thrill looking at the numbers in my bank account, because for me, money is "keeping score." It's like a massive video game, in which I use my brains and skills to make that number go up. That's actually why I hate spending money, because if I spend money, my "score" goes down.

I think getting a degree in engineering and getting into industry is a lot easier, for example.

It is, but I want to make money the hard way.

A lot depends on what you want to do out of life.

 

[twofish-quant]

Great post. You offer a lot of useful information for deciding whether to attend a top school or not to.

It's not a decision you make.

If you have good scores and a decent high school record, there's no harm in applying to MIT. The problem is that there is a 90% chance that you won't get in. If you have a *perfect* record, there is still a very good chance that you won't get in.

The information on the website is correct. There is absolutely nothing that you can say or do that will guarantee admission to MIT. That's a little depressing. One reason that people like myself are really interested in alternatives to MIT, is that I think that there is a very good chance that if I had to do it over again, *I* couldn't get in, and this topic comes up constantly at alumni gatherings.

Applying is only a waste of time if you have a transcript that is so bad that you have zero chance of getting in. For example, if your SAT math is 600, don't bother applying to MIT, you aren't getting in. If it's 700, then your odds of getting in are average. But even that adds to the stress. Sometimes it feels good for someone to tell you that "you've lost." If you have an SAT math of 600, you aren't getting in, give up. The trouble is that just as it is impossible to find something that guarantees admission, once you've filtered out people that obviously don't have the skills, it's hard to find things that will guarantee non-admission.

Also, "top schools" are very different. The culture of MIT is very, very different from the culture of Harvard, and Stanford, Princeton, Columbia, NYU, UChicago are all very, very different from each other. One thing that is very different about MIT is that MIT people tend to talk a lot about MIT, whereas I don't see Harvard people spending as much time talking about Harvard. I can't stand Harvard undergraduate culture.

One of the reasons that I talk about MIT is that I was at an alumni gathering in which the President of MIT told people that they should talk about MIT.

 

[TMFKAN64]

I just don't feel like getting an Ph.D. in astrophysics is the way to become rich.

No one ever suggested that if you want to become rich, getting a Ph.D. in astrophysics is the way to go. Rather the contrary.

If money is what you want, go chase money!

You'll make a comfortable living with a Ph.D. in astrophysics, though.

 

[TMFKAN64]

A lot depends on what you want to do out of life.

Amen.

 

[Anonymous217]

It's not a decision you make.

If you have good scores and a decent high school record, there's no harm in applying to MIT. The problem is that there is a 90% chance that you won't get in. If you have a *perfect* record, there is still a very good chance that you won't get in.

My assumption, of course, supposed that you were accepted and you were now choosing which university to attend. I faced a similar issue last year for undergrad: I was accepted to MIT, Princeton, Yale, and Berkeley (among others). However, I chose Berkeley for undergrad for reasons similar to what you have already stated, although I also wanted to attend both a public and private university to experience both cultures. So, then, why not Berkeley for undergrad and perhaps HYPMS, etc. for grad (obviously, I haven't found a concentration yet, but this is the general concept)?

 

[Omega_Prime]

Two-Fish I thoroughly enjoyed your edgy, quasi-Yoda-like contributions to what may have been just some ordinary necro thread!

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

For me, the answer was not only yes, but HELL, YES! Much of it is that I don't see doing academic research as "losing years of my life" any more than I see industrial research as "losing years of my life."



Sure, but I hate fast and easy. I like challenge, and so if someone just gave me money, it wouldn't be any "fun". I am a tightwad, cheapskate that hates spending money. I also don't like gambling. If I put money in a slot machine, and get a ton of money, that's also not "fun."

I get some sort of weird thrill looking at the numbers in my bank account, because for me, money is "keeping score." It's like a massive video game, in which I use my brains and skills to make that number go up. That's actually why I hate spending money, because if I spend money, my "score" goes down.



It is, but I want to make money the hard way.

A lot depends on what you want to do out of life.

Ah, I get it now. It's just that I have a irrational hate against anything related to academia.
I came from a pretty wealthy family myself so becoming rich was never my main focus, but I did graduate in chemical engineering because I enjoyed it, but no way I was going to do academic research haha.
Some people said it was also an waste of time since I could have just ventured into the family business(farming, which I enjoy btw, and I specialized in fertilizers and soil chemistry) but I throughly enjoyed my course, but that was it...graduate soon and leave university.
What I did see although during my student years was that people who went into academia(even if they didn't end becoming professors, but tried getting an phd) didn't end up poor but they have a lot tougher path than people who went into industry. But I think we agree at this point.
I'm also not american so things are a little different down here, large scale monoculture farmers get a lot more money here in Brazil than phd's.

 

[Mépris]

The information on the website is correct. There is absolutely nothing that you can say or do that will guarantee admission to MIT. That's a little depressing. One reason that people like myself are really interested in alternatives to MIT, is that I think that there is a very good chance that if I had to do it over again, *I* couldn't get in, and this topic comes up constantly at alumni gatherings.

What did you say and do? Did you apply to Princeton as well?

On that note, there are probably people who've had their grades inflated and another bunch who're having their essays by people who know just how to write them (i.e: confidently write about things the students haven't even done)...how do you compete with that?

I went on their admissions' website a few days ago and saw this 20-year old video, with some Nirvana song in the background, about MIT and they claim that they've been "consistent" over the years and not much has changed since. What do you think of that?

Another thing, at your work place, are you working with other MIT alums? Or are they present in other departments?

I will begin my application soon enough. Gotta create accounts on MyMIT and CommonApp.

 

[Mépris]

http://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/there_is_no_formula

Reading this gives me the impression that they take the remaining applicants, the right fits, put their names in a box and randomly pick out a thousand of those...

 

[Vanadium 50]

It's funny. Students demand to be evaluated as individuals and "not a bunch of numbers" - but they also want an exact formula with complete certainty.

 

[Mépris]

It's funny. Students demand to be evaluated as individuals and "not a bunch of numbers" - but they also want an exact formula with complete certainty.

Ha! I prefer this way, it allows me to play to my strengths but before rushing into anything. I'd rather have a clear (as clear things would allow) understanding of what I'm up against. So far, the general idea that I've gathered is that if one is looking at it from a perspective of trying to figure out what is *expected* of him, he's already moving in the wrong direction. Initiating things independently, on the other hand, is a trait I've observed in people who have actually gotten in. (just reading through the forums here and the MIT admissions blogs)

I've seen this guy who got accepted into MIT, Harvard and a couple other schools with horrendous grades. He was, however, a refugee in the US who set up various clubs related to his culture and interests. (some Muslim-related club...) He also went to Somalia and helped build three wells in two different towns. While all of this is very impressive, I don't think that's what got him in. I haven't read his essay(s), but I suspect he got in because of them. His essay was about what he did/experienced in Somalia and my guess is, he wrote about what he loved. I'd go as far as saying that if that guy managed to write about scavenging or playing with a yo-yo in the same way he wrote about Somalia, he would still have gotten in. Anyway, that's just my own opinion on what I know so far and what I think may be wrong. In any case, unless one personally knows people in admissions or are part of the committee themselves, there's no way to know.

Other question:[b/] What do you think of the interview process? Have you interviewed anyone at some point? (Vanadium, twofish, any other MIT alum)

Also:
Anybody wanting to go to a "big school" where there's an exact formula for entry can always go to the UK, assuming they have the funds for it. ~$25k for tuition fees/year, depending on where one's going. The formula is usually displayed on the school's program website under the entry requirements section.
Interestingly, no one UK university (as far as I'm aware) gives half a toss about an applicants performance throughout the year. If you have great A-Levels, you're in. Some places require interview though. And if we're talking medicine, then things start getting more complicated but for everything else, it's all very straightforward.

 

[twofu]

What I want to know is, what is going on at MIT Physics that isn't going on at UIUC or University of Minnesota or William&Marry (random order) ?

What has came out from these "top" universities in the past 50 years that isn't coming out at the "garbagety, underrated, nobody has-heard-about *insert underrated University*"

If the answer to anyone of these is "nothing", then is it all just a huge gimmick? Is it all about pride and prestige?

This isn't a sarcastic post, I really don't know what the big deal is. I understand the *wow* factor but am I learning inadequate graduate physics at a state school? Or do most other schools just not have as much money as those prestigious ones?

 

[Mépris]

What I want to know is, what is going on at MIT Physics that isn't going on at UIUC or University of Minnesota or William&Marry (random order) ?

What has came out from these "top" universities in the past 50 years that isn't coming out at the "garbagety, underrated, nobody has-heard-about *insert underrated University*"

If the answer to anyone of these is "nothing", then is it all just a huge gimmick? Is it all about pride and prestige?

This isn't a sarcastic post, I really don't know what the big deal is. I understand the *wow* factor but am I learning inadequate graduate physics at a state school? Or do most other schools just not have as much money as those prestigious ones?

I highly doubt this.

As for as I'm concerned, what matters the most is the following:
- financial aid
- who I'll be studying AND living with on a daily basis (student diversity is important for me)
- location

I could elaborate more on why I would like to go to these schools. In the case of MIT, it's especially the second point. I also get bored very quickly and at a school like MIT, I won't have that "luxury".

Note that I don't specifically want to go to MIT and MIT alone. If I were to find out that the University of Lesotho was *like* MIT (in some respect), I would want to go there as well.

 

[twofish-quant]

What did you say and do? Did you apply to Princeton as well?

It's interesting history what I did to get into MIT, but it may be irrelevant since 2011 is not 1987.

On that note, there are probably people who've had their grades inflated and another bunch who're having their essays by people who know just how to write them (i.e: confidently write about things the students haven't even done)...how do you compete with that?

You accept that the world is not fair and sometimes you are screwed. (Seriously)

I went on their admissions' website a few days ago and saw this 20-year old video, with some Nirvana song in the background, about MIT and they claim that they've been "consistent" over the years and not much has changed since. What do you think of that?

The last time there were radical changes in MIT admissions policies was in the mid-1980's. There are a lot of tweaking and internal politics, but I don't think that there have been fundamental changes in how MIT does admissions since 1980's because the changes that were made then were so controversial that no one really wants to go through that fight again.

However, even if MIT hasn't changed the world has. The admission rates at MIT have gone down as the number of qualified students has gone up. Also, remember in 1987, the internet didn't exist for most people, so that I couldn't go online and read about how to create the perfect application.

Another thing, at your work place, are you working with other MIT alums? Or are the present in other departments?

There are a decent number of MIT alumni, but I've never felt as if having an MIT brand helped me at all.

One irony is that while MIT is trains a lot of people in quantitative finance, but the actual amount of QF research at MIT (with the exception of Andrew Lo) is awful. One problem is that that the course 8/18 (physics/math) people and the 14/15 (economics/management) people aren't on speaking terms. The other problem is that MIT tends to focus management courses toward starting new companies in which quantitative finance is largely irrelevant.

 

[twofish-quant]

What I want to know is, what is going on at MIT Physics that isn't going on at UIUC or University of Minnesota or William&Marry (random order) ?

I don't know anything about UIUC or University of Minnesota. I did spend one summer at William and Mary, and I came away with a very good impression of their physics department. One thing I liked about William and Mary is that it's a small cozy department in which everyone knows everyone else.

MIT physics is big and it can be lonely.

My experience has been with MIT and UT Austin, and there are some differences...

1) The most important thing that MIT teaches you is a culture and a set of values. You are taught that some things are important and some things aren't. This doesn't happen through any class, but you get exposed to an environment, and you absorb certain ideas. For example, one thing that you learn is "openness is good" and "social hierarchy is bad".

The culture is important. One thing that MIT has done is to put out all of its courses for free. That gives you the skeleton, but then you have to put together the meat, and part of what I'm trying to do is to teach the culture of MIT.

2) You get a lot of freedom. A lot of schools tell you to do X, Y, and Z, but the attitude of MIT is that "you are smart, do what you think is best, we trust you."

3) You get cool technology a few years before anyone gets it. One of the most important things that I got at MIT was an e-mail account. This is boring in 2011, but I went to school in 1987, and most people had no clue what e-mail was. I was one of the first people in the entire world to use the world wide web in August 1991.

4) There are no weed-out classes at MIT. The weeding out gets done at admissions, so you can go through freshman year, seriously, seriously screw up, and you still end up with a physics degree.

What has came out from these "top" universities in the past 50 years that isn't coming out at the "garbagety, underrated, nobody has-heard-about *insert underrated University*"

The internet. Just to name one thing.

One thing that MIT is pretty strong at is to take technology and then turn it into money makers. That's one reason that MIT is much less siloed than other places. If you try to start your own company, you have to learn about a 100 different things, and if you just get stuck in the one department, it's not going to work.

Also looking at the last fifty years might give you a bad perspective. If you compare MIT and UT Austin in 1955, then UT Austin is not even in the game. What happened in the 1970's is that you had a lot of graduates from big name east-coast universities end up in the mid-West and they started their own departments.

This isn't a sarcastic post, I really don't know what the big deal is. I understand the *wow* factor but am I learning inadequate graduate physics at a state school? Or do most other schools just not have as much money as those prestigious ones?

Graduate and undergraduate is very different. One thing to remember is that with graduate physics programs you typically have a very small number of students. If you have twenty people, then the quality of one person can make the department shine or sink and that one person is you.

Also physics doesn't work via tiers. There are some areas in which MIT is totally incompetent at.

 

[twofu]

I don't know anything about UIUC or University of Minnesota. I did spend one summer at William and Mary, and I came away with a very good impression of their physics department. One thing I liked about William and Mary is that it's a small cozy department in which everyone knows everyone else.

MIT physics is big and it can be lonely.

My experience has been with MIT and UT Austin, and there are some differences...

1) The most important thing that MIT teaches you is a culture and a set of values. You are taught that some things are important and some things aren't. This doesn't happen through any class, but you get exposed to an environment, and you absorb certain ideas. For example, one thing that you learn is "openness is good" and "social hierarchy is bad".

The culture is important. One thing that MIT has done is to put out all of its courses for free. That gives you the skeleton, but then you have to put together the meat, and part of what I'm trying to do is to teach the culture of MIT.

2) You get a lot of freedom. A lot of schools tell you to do X, Y, and Z, but the attitude of MIT is that "you are smart, do what you think is best, we trust you."

3) You get cool technology a few years before anyone gets it. One of the most important things that I got at MIT was an e-mail account. This is boring in 2011, but I went to school in 1987, and most people had no clue what e-mail was. I was one of the first people in the entire world to use the world wide web in August 1991.

4) There are no weed-out classes at MIT. The weeding out gets done at admissions, so you can go through freshman year, seriously, seriously screw up, and you still end up with a physics degree.



The internet. Just to name one thing.

One thing that MIT is pretty strong at is to take technology and then turn it into money makers. That's one reason that MIT is much less siloed than other places. If you try to start your own company, you have to learn about a 100 different things, and if you just get stuck in the one department, it's not going to work.

Also looking at the last fifty years might give you a bad perspective. If you compare MIT and UT Austin in 1955, then UT Austin is not even in the game. What happened in the 1970's is that you had a lot of graduates from big name east-coast universities end up in the mid-West and they started their own departments.



Graduate and undergraduate is very different. One thing to remember is that with graduate physics programs you typically have a very small number of students. If you have twenty people, then the quality of one person can make the department shine or sink and that one person is you.

Also physics doesn't work via tiers. There are some areas in which MIT is totally incompetent at.

Thanks for the perspective. My stubborn self would like to think that if you were going to be successful in physics, technology, etc., you would do it at any school you go to, e.g. the school doesn't make the scientist. I think we all get lost in meaningless things like prestige, so it's nice that the school meant something to you besides "we're #1".

In the end, it really is a lottery. I've reviewed profiles of people with great research, perfect GPA's and 95th percentile GRE's that were rejected from MIT. This, of course, has deterred me from ever applying or even thought about applying for top 5 universities, even though I have a good record here at UIUC.

I guess to the OP, you can learn that a lot isn't in your hands, but I'd like to think that there are many great universities despite the "big names".

 

[twofu]

The internet. Just to name one thing.

Not that this matters but just out of curiosity,I thought it was groups at Stanford and UCLA that first introduced the internet to the general public. Maybe you didn't mean invention.

 

[Fizex]

You guys are thinking too hard. To get into MIT all you have to do is walk onto the campus.

 

[twofish-quant]

Thanks for the perspective. My stubborn self would like to think that if you were going to be successful in physics, technology, etc., you would do it at any school you go to, e.g. the school doesn't make the scientist.

I know this isn't true. I lucked out in that I was born in the United States. If I was born in China or Mexico, I wouldn't have gotten nearly as far as I have. One thing about the US is that it has a very strong research system. In some ways talking about Harvard vs. University of Minnesota is like talking about whether you want your jewelry to be made out of gold or platinum.

If I had gone to University of Florida or Harvard or if I had joined the army or if I had run off to Iceland instead of MIT, I'd be someone else.

I think we all get lost in meaningless things like prestige, so it's nice that the school meant something to you besides "we're #1".

One curious thing about MIT thinking is that it goes against "we're #1." There are about a dozen things wrong with MIT, and when I graduated I was seriously mad and angry at the place. I didn't realize for a few years that the very fact that I was (and still am) very dissatisfied with MIT is that I had great teachers.

If I had left MIT a "satisfied customer" then I wouldn't be thinking about how to make it better. So there is a weird love-hate relationship that I have with the place, that is pretty common among students. One big problem is that MIT does not scale.

The other thing is that prestige is not meaningless. Prestige can and does get you money and power. If I say "give me money for this cool new thing" and if the President of Harvard does it, then the fact that he has prestige and I don't means that he gets the money.

In the end, it really is a lottery. I've reviewed profiles of people with great research, perfect GPA's and 95th percentile GRE's that were rejected from MIT. This, of course, has deterred me from ever applying or even thought about applying for top 5 universities, even though I have a good record here at UIUC.

Don't understand. The fact that is a lottery means that you *should* apply. You might just get wildly lucky.

Also two things about MIT physics graduate admissions.

1) as a matter of very strong policy, MIT graduate school will not admit MIT undergraduates. Richard Feymann even mentions this in his book.

2) according to the person that ran MIT graduate physics admissions when I was there, one of the larger factors in whether you get admitted is what type of physics you are interested in. They have a funding for a number of places in each of the different divisions, and some divisions are oversubscribed and some are under-subscribed. Of course as an outsider you have no idea which is which.

I guess to the OP, you can learn that a lot isn't in your hands, but I'd like to think that there are many great universities despite the "big names".

The thing about physics is that the "big names" are not where you think the are, and one of the things that you really have to do as an undergraduate is to figure out who the big names are. In nuclear physics, MSU and SUNY Stony Brook. In radio astronomy, University of Virginia. Optical, University of Arizona and University of Hawaii.

 

[Vanadium 50]

What do you think of the interview process? Have you interviewed anyone at some point?

I've interviewed over 100 applicants. If you are serious about MIT, I would get interviewed. "I'm really, really, really passionate about going to MIT" and "I can't be bothered to spend an hour doing something which demonstrably improves my chances to get in" are not exactly compatible statements.

 

[Vanadium 50]

1) as a matter of very strong policy, MIT graduate school will not admit MIT undergraduates. Richard Feymann even mentions this in his book..

This is utterly false, and I really wish you would stop saying this.

First, Feynman got his undergraduate degree 70 years ago. What was true then is irrelevant to what is true now. But I am not even sure it was true then. Marty Deutsch is a counterexample.

Second, a quick search in Spires alone shows 69 people who got SB's and PhD's from MIT - and these are limited to people who have at least one HEP publication. Some names: Ray Weiss, Dick Yamamoto, Paris Sphicas, Burt Richter, Cherry Murray, Gail Hanson, Shirley Jackson, and Brian Cole.

I don't particularly think it's a good idea to do this, and I know many MIT physics faculty agree with me (or at least many of the ones I talk to). But it is certainly not "very strong policy".

There are 433 people on Spires with an MIT PhD, 275 with an MIT BS, and 69 overlapping. There are at least 10,000 people in that database. Do the statistics yourself - you'll discover than an SB from MIT in fact makes you more likely rather than less likely to get a PhD from there. But it's still a bad idea.