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

[Draksis314]

I'm probably thinking about this too early, but what do you think I should focus on in the years to come so I can get into a top notch college (like MIT or CalTech)?

I'm an eighth grader this year. I've skipped some grades in various subjects: I'm in Pre-Calc (the prereq for Calc), AP Chem 2, and French II this year. I got an 80 on the Math PSAT when I last took it, and I hope to get a 75ish on the Writing this year (last year I got a 63). Reading I'm not so great at; my score was a 62. I do Science Olympiad and am working with some professors at a nearby college to learn how to use a CFD program. I intend to be an aerospace engineer when I grow up.

Thanks for the help!

 

[fss]

You should concentrate on getting good (if not perfect) grades given your course constraints in high school, achieving leadership roles in school organizations, and continuing with your out-of-school research.

Even then it's still a long shot.

 

[confusedinMA]

You should also realize that it doesn't matter that much where you do your undergrad and there are a lot of great school outside of MIT and Caltech.

To be honest being in the top tier in high school basically just puts you into the lottery to be accepted to someplace like MIT, there is no guarantee.

 

[Vanadium 50]

You should work hard, particularly on the courses you find difficult. If you are doing relatively poorly in English, strive to excel there.

 

[TylerH]

Look into the different high schools available to you in your state. Here in NC, we have NCSSM. Schools like NCSSM offer classes way beyond those of a normal high school and just the name carries weight. Judging by the fact you're in Precal and AP Chem in the eighth grade, you could easily get into NCSSM, but I don't know if there's an analogous school in your state or how competitive their standards are.

Here's a list of schools modeled after NCSSM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Consortium_for_Specialized_Secondary_Schools_of_Mathematics,_Science_and_Technology

 

[Anonymous217]

Stellar GPA, many high AP scores, high ranking (valedictorian, etc.), strong SAT, unique extracurriculars. For the application itself, you also need great teacher recommendations (maybe you can find some professors or teachers to get to know over the next four years), and unique/interesting essays. It's really subjective, but this is the minimum. Just make sure you know every category that colleges base their admissions on, and perfect each one as best as you possibly can over these 4 years.

Beyond your stats (GPA, AP scores, SAT), what truly makes you stand out an as applicant are your extracurriculars, recommendations, and essays. You're on a great start, but it is only a start. You still have a long way to go to perfect your application.

 

[Fizex]

zombie thread alert

 

[TylerH]

Whoa... I didn't notice it's 2 years old; I came to it from the list of similar threads, but forgot to check the date. Sorry.

 

[Mépris]

I've been looking at MIT applications and I've considered applying. I will do likewise for the other colleges offering need-blind admissions.

Now, what is this big fuss about extracurricular activities? I don't any flippin' fencing or horse riding. I never had to work three jobs to support my family. We're not very rich but we get by. I didn't organise a fashion show to help raise money to get water to a couple of villages in India nor did I build wells in Somalia. Sure, I can understand that some of these actually do matter and it's really nice that some of these kids managed to do that but I find it ridiculous that there is such emphasis on them. Anyone agree with this?

http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/apply/the_selection_process_application_reading_committee_and_decisions/applying_sideways.shtml

Check this out. I've been reading through lots of pages on their admissions website and all I can say is that it's been very encouraging. And it seems to me that no one really gives half a dead rat's behind about what they say. At least, not many on CollegeConfidential. There is this thread there where applicants list their grades and what it is they've done and what not. I see lots of people with perfect 4.0 GPAs and SAT scores who also have a gazillion amount of extra curricular activities who get rejected. From what I gather, they get rejected from the MIT because they specifically do the opposite of what they're told. It seems that they don't do what they like but they do whatever they can to "fill up" their college application forms...unless they actually like filling this stuff up for its own sake. In which case, tough luck.

 

[twofish-quant]

Sure, I can understand that some of these actually do matter and it's really nice that some of these kids managed to do that but I find it ridiculous that there is such emphasis on them. Anyone agree with this?

1) How else are you going to figure out who to admit?

2) Extracurriculars are actually quite useful. One thing that's a generally useful skill is to be able to organize people to get something done. One of the hidden (actually it's not so hidden) agendas of MIT is to brainwash young impressible students into becoming agents of the institute, then have them get into positions of power in the global military-industrial-academic complex, and then change the rules of global power to insure that MIT has an important role in running the planet.

Having someone that can organize a Latin Club, means that you might be able in two or three decades to organize a Fortune 500 corporation, and by extension help MIT maintain global domination.

Check this out. I've been reading through lots of pages on their admissions website and all I can say is that it's been very encouraging.

Don't get too encouraged.

People tell you to do X, then you do X, and then you find that you end up *not* getting admitted because you do X. Twenty years ago, I had similar people tell me that I should focus on learning the material, broaden my horizons, and not stress out about grades. I did that, and I found out that I couldn't get into my top choices of graduate schools.

Now it turns out, that they were right for telling what they did.

And it seems to me that no one really gives half a dead rat's behind about what they say.

And there is a reason for this. At the end of the day, if you take their advice and do what some people in MIT want you to do, that reduces your chances of getting into MIT. People that are hyper-obsessed with social climbing have figured this out.

At that point, I think the right attitude is screw MIT.

From what I gather, they get rejected from the MIT because they specifically do the opposite of what they're told.

Nope. They get rejected because you have 1000 spots and there are too many good applicants. There is a huge amount of luck and randomness. Also people at MIT have different views about what is the ideal education, and what people should do.

It seems that they don't do what they like but they do whatever they can to "fill up" their college application forms...unless they actually like filling this stuff up for its own sake. In which case, tough luck.

There are some weird paradoxes. If you do what MIT tells you to do, because it's the right thing, that might radically decrease your changes of getting into MIT (or not).

If you think that what is in the MIT admissions website appeals to you, and that's how you want to run your life (GREAT!) Just don't be surprised if it bites you in the rear end. However, at if you take their advice and then find that you don't get into MIT will then screw MIT.

But on the other hand, it might be a good thing. It means that you have to think about what you really want to do with your life.

 

[twofish-quant]

I'm probably thinking about this too early, but what do you think I should focus on in the years to come so I can get into a top notch college (like MIT or CalTech)?

Nothing fancy. Take hard courses, push yourself, and do your general best to learn stuff.

You must realize that because the places are few enough so that you could end up doing everything and you still don't end up in a big name college, but some things are worth doing for the sake of doing them.

 

[twofish-quant]

It's really hard for me to read that sort of stuff, because the people that are giving this sort of advice sound a lot like the people that I knew when I was at MIT, and it's really hard for me to read that advice without being rather emotional, and mostly angry.

Part of it is because that seems a little detached from the "real world." People have really good reasons for trying to be obsessive competitive, and I think it's more useful to look at those reasons and try to figure out what to do next.

The basic problem is that MIT is just too small. You have a thousand places, and as we get better and better at producing smart people, it becomes harder, probably impossible to come up with a rational way of selecting those places.

The other social problem is that we are in a "winner take all" society. People believe if they don't make it into the right schools and meet the right people, that they are doomed. The problem is that I can't say that this belief is incorrect.

Personally, I think the whole system is going to blow up. I'm not sure how or when, but as admission rates go down, and you have more and more smart people outside the system, something is going to happen.

 

[Mépris]

1) How else are you going to figure out who to admit?

My first guess is something along the lines of decentralising "excellence." What is it that makes everyone think going to MIT, Stanford, Columbia or Yale is THE thing to do? What makes people think that not going there is going to screw things up?

I'm applying to MIT and another 3-4 schools only because they have need-blind admission and give out financial aid to anyone who's admitted. I do have a slight bias towards MIT because I have an idea of how living and working there is going to be like and it's something that I like the idea of. I'm bored here. I don't want to be bored. I want to do useful stuff with **** loads of awesome kids. I'd also like to live elsewhere. Living on campus seems nice, really nice. If I don't get in anywhere though, screw it. I don't NEED that to be happy. I can fill the gaps with other things and other people. Maybe it won't be as good but if I don't go, I'll never know and I'm absolutely fine with being content with what I can get. Actually no, I'll probably always try to get more out of things but that's another story.

2) Extracurriculars are actually quite useful. One thing that's a generally useful skill is to be able to organize people to get something done. One of the hidden (actually it's not so hidden) agendas of MIT is to brainwash young impressible students into becoming agents of the institute, then have them get into positions of power in the global military-industrial-academic complex, and then change the rules of global power to insure that MIT has an important role in running the planet.

Having someone that can organize a Latin Club, means that you might be able in two or three decades to organize a Fortune 500 corporation, and by extension help MIT maintain global domination.

To hell with world domination. Heck, judging by the way you talk about them, I wouldn't be surprised if they already have a big influence on things going on. I remember smiling at the X-Files reference you once made. I think it's hilarious. Why is there the need for "power"? Why does MIT even think they should have "global domination"?

Don't get too encouraged.

People tell you to do X, then you do X, and then you find that you end up *not* getting admitted because you do X. Twenty years ago, I had similar people tell me that I should focus on learning the material, broaden my horizons, and not stress out about grades. I did that, and I found out that I couldn't get into my top choices of graduate schools.

Now it turns out, that they were right for telling what they did.

I thought you did the extra learning because you wanted to? The thing with advice is, it's just advice. No one is forcing you to do anything. It's either a word of warning or some kind of subjective insight into something. What you do with that information is your responsibility and yours alone. But yes, thank you for pointing this bit out - I will keep that in mind.

And there is a reason for this. At the end of the day, if you take their advice and do what some people in MIT want you to do, that reduces your chances of getting into MIT. People that are hyper-obsessed with social climbing have figured this out.

At that point, I think the right attitude is screw MIT.

There are some weird paradoxes. If you do what MIT tells you to do, because it's the right thing, that might radically decrease your changes of getting into MIT (or not).

Why would that reduce them? What has that got to do with social climbing?
Screw them? Well, while it does look like a lot of work figuring out how this organism called MIT works and what I can do to penetrate its walls, I think it might very well be worth the effort *IF* it works out. They *sound* like they *genuinely care* and not many places are like that. Or even sound like that. Or maybe that's what they want me to think...Might be too much of a cynical thought but I think my cynicism is healthy, for me at least.

If you think that what is in the MIT admissions website appeals to you, and that's how you want to run your life (GREAT!) Just don't be surprised if it bites you in the rear end. However, at if you take their advice and then find that you don't get into MIT will then screw MIT.

But on the other hand, it might be a good thing. It means that you have to think about what you really want to do with your life.

The way I see it, there's only so much they can do for me or anyone else. If I already have some of that, why should I torture myself mentally about not being there? :)
Maybe I'll find myself or make myself a better deal because I got accepted elsewhere.

 

[Mépris]

Part of it is because that seems a little detached from the "real world." People have really good reasons for trying to be obsessive competitive, and I think it's more useful to look at those reasons and try to figure out what to do next.

Some people do. Some other people don't. But by whose standards is a reason a good or a bad one? Who is fit to judge these reasons? Some kid, because of his family's financial hurdles might be convinced that an education at a big college is the way out, the way to happy things and he gets uber competitive because of that. Another might be under the pressure of his parents to go to Harvard because his brother and Dad went there. And his Dad's Dad. And so forth. In my opinion, it's "wrong" to consider one reason being better than the other.

Personally, I think the whole system is going to blow up. I'm not sure how or when, but as admission rates go down, and you have more and more smart people outside the system, something is going to happen.

Outside the system? Well, how about a NEW system for smart people? It could be anywhere.

 

[MissSilvy]

What IS this deluge of people who are obsessed with MIT/CalTech/whatever big name school? I will tell you two things that you probably need to hear but don't want to listen to.

1. It is not the place that makes you excellent. Going to MIT does not magically mean you will get stellar grades and do mountains of research and become a quadruple doctorate. I see people at my own university that are convinced their life will be over if they don't get into MIT for graduate school and then half-*** homework assignments and labs. If you want to be a top-notch scientist, it's not as easy as gaining entry into a particular school. There are many more (and arguably, more important) things you must do to be excellent that you can do at ANY decent school.

2. It is absolutely pointless to bend four years of your life to the sole goal of gaining admission to a particular college. This is not to say that you shouldn't get good grades and do some relevant activities, but joining debate because you think it will impress an admissions committee is pointless. Go read some books, help out in a lab, learn to code, build a forge, whatever; there's a million things that are better for your long-term education than hand-wringing and pearl-clutching over the 'system'.

 

[Angry Citizen]

What IS this deluge of people who are obsessed with MIT/CalTech/whatever big name school?

Well personally, I'm interested in their grad school aerospace programs (both MIT and CalTech) because they have done some interesting things in the field of propulsion research, and the program options reflect that. MIT's is especially interesting because of their work in ion propulsion systems.

But that's grad school :) I can't imagine why anyone would want to go to MIT for undergrad. I'm happy at UT Austin, and I'll get my entire education there for less than a year's cost at MIT/CalTech without sacrificing any of the academics.

 

[Pengwuino]

Some people do. Some other people don't. But by whose standards is a reason a good or a bad one? Who is fit to judge these reasons? Some kid, because of his family's financial hurdles might be convinced that an education at a big college is the way out, the way to happy things and he gets uber competitive because of that. Another might be under the pressure of his parents to go to Harvard because his brother and Dad went there. And his Dad's Dad. And so forth. In my opinion, it's "wrong" to consider one reason being better than the other.

There's an easy way to judge whether someones reasons are right are wrong and people are absolutely right in making such judgements. Is the persons reasons correct and/or fully thought out and does it conflict with other things?

For example, if someone says they want to go to Columbia University and it's going to get their family out of poverty, well that's all nice and well. What's that? You're going to take out $200k in loans and get an art degree? Well sorry, your reasoning was extremely poor in that sense because you're actually going to make things worse most likely. Has the person considered going to a much cheaper university and thought over what REALLY makes one University better than a cheaper one?

For your second example, if the person lives in a family where money is no object and he has no reason to consider other universities, than going to a school where your family has gone makes as good of sense as anything else. However, if money is important and you want to go to another school for whatever reason, then I'm pretty sure any sane person would agree that going to Harvard because your family went there is a bad reason to go there.

When reasons give rise to actions that have consequences, it is absolutely prudent to judge such reasons as right or wrong. Bring your logic further and would you dare allow the leaders of your country to do things based off reasons not open to scrutiny?

 

[Mépris]

I'll get my entire education there for less than a year's cost at MIT/CalTech without sacrificing any of the academics.

Yes, YOU. Not international students. That's where the "big schools" come in. I honestly couldn't care any less about an Ivy League school or what anybody thinks of it. If the University of Alaska offered good financial aid (and had a degree in Physics) I would have applied there as well. It so happens that not every school is willing to spend that much money. Not every school has that much money to spend. If I don't get in any of those places, I'll go to my local university. I want to give elsewhere a shot because I'd like to live elsewhere.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Yes, YOU. Not international students. That's where the "big schools" come in.

That confuses me, because I've often heard how incredibly rare it is for MIT to accept students from, say, India. Perhaps it's just India though...

 

[Mépris]

There's an easy way to judge whether someones reasons are right are wrong and people are absolutely right in making such judgements. Is the persons reasons correct and/or fully thought out and does it conflict with other things?

I agree wholeheartedly with the bold part. As for judging though, I don't think it's fair for others to do that (in general), in certain cases. One can't always know underlying reasons. There could countless reasons that could make somebody choose to do this thing or think that way and I don't think it's fair to judge these persons based on that.

On another note, I think Columbia give financial aid (as in, you pay only the amount that you can) for US citizens.

I'll make this quick. I got to leave in a few minutes. There is this guy I heard of. He used to live in my village. He studied medicine in China. He was only able to go there because of a scholarship he got. His study time was whenever he was in the fields, feeding cattle. darn. got to go

When reasons give rise to actions that have consequences, it is absolutely prudent to judge such reasons as right or wrong. Bring your logic further and would you dare allow the leaders of your country to do things based off reasons not open to scrutiny?

Interesting. :)

My thought process didn't even reach there. It's funny how if I were arguing with somebody else, I'd have instinctively tried to find something wrong. I guess that sucks. (trying to "beat" the other man) Maybe I'm not as self critical as I'd thought or I just don't cover enough possibilities. Anyway..

 

[Pengwuino]

I agree wholeheartedly with the bold part. As for judging though, I don't think it's fair for others to do that (in general), in certain cases. One can't always know underlying reasons. There could countless reasons that could make somebody choose to do this thing or think that way and I don't think it's fair to judge these persons based on that.

On another note, I think Columbia give financial aid (as in, you pay only the amount that you can) for US citizens.

Yes and really, in the grand scheme of things, who cares who judges who for what.

Also, there are a few (and growing) universities that have a rule where if your family doesn't make something like $150k or $200k a year, your tuition is waived. I think Columbia is actually one of them so you may not pay period (outside of living expenses which must be hell in their own right).

 

[twofish-quant]

My first guess is something along the lines of decentralising "excellence." What is it that makes everyone think going to MIT, Stanford, Columbia or Yale is THE thing to do?

Clever marketing. Big name universities have billions of dollars and have money to spend on marketing themselves.

I do have a slight bias towards MIT because I have an idea of how living and working there is going to be like and it's something that I like the idea of. I'm bored here. I don't want to be bored. I want to do useful stuff with **** loads of awesome kids. I'd also like to live elsewhere.

That's good. The one thing that MIT is not is boring. If your experience is anything like mine, you will have moments of shear frustration and terror. But that's better than being bored. The other thing that is nice about MIT is that MIT doesn't really try to mold students to an MIT-type, so you can usually find some group of people that you fit in with.

To hell with world domination. Heck, judging by the way you talk about them, I wouldn't be surprised if they already have a big influence on things going on.

They actually do. There are a relatively small number of people that run the planet, and a lot of them come from MIT.

I remember smiling at the X-Files reference you once made. I think it's hilarious.

It's also not coincidential. One thing that was really weird was how the people and situations seemed like MIT. Now I don't think that MIT has a weird conspiracy with space aliens to enslave humanity, but I think that if it did it would be like the X-files. The weird thing is that some of the specific people that were in the X-files seemed like people I knew at MIT. I knew a professor there that seemed exactly like the Well-Manicured man or the Cigar-smoking Man.

I later found out that this wasn't an accident. It turns out that the producer of the X-files Chris Carter has a brother that is a professor at MIT. So I'm pretty sure that MIT provided some inspiration for the X-files.

Why is there the need for "power"? Why does MIT even think they should have "global domination"?

My parents grew up in Japanese-occupied China, so their interest in science and engineering was to kick out the Japanese army, and make sure nothing like that happens again. It stinks if you don't have power.

Part of what made MIT what it is is simply the fact that in the 1950's, people in the US were terrified of waking up one morning with Russian tanks in the streets and pictures of Lenin everywhere.

As far as why global domination is useful. It's good to be the king. The fact that the United States is the most powerful nation on the planet benefits Americans in a thousand different ways that people don't quite realize (for example the fact that we are having this conversation in English and not Chinese or Russian).

MIT is an essential part of US global domination, because if North Korea and Iran could build H-bombs and the US couldn't then we would be looking at a very different world.

Of course, we aren't in 1955, and if people in the US come to the conclusion that this global domination thing isn't worth the bother (which is what the Great Britain concluded in the 1920's), then the world changes. It wouldn't surprise me if by 2025, the US decides "let EU, China and India run the world, we are exhausted", but we aren't at that point yet.

Again, MIT is pretty critical for this. One way of keeping a country from getting tired is to use robots. The fact that we can use MIT-designed robot drones to bomb Libya and we don't have to send actual live US soldiers changes the picture.

They *sound* like they *genuinely care* and not many places are like that.

Some people do. Some people don't. Also even the people that do genuinely care may not be able to do anything to help you.

One thing that has been highly controversial is "what is MIT?" For example, there are people in the admissions office that say "we'll we didn't admit the guy that built the nuclear reactor, and we care a lot about personality."

On the other hand, there are people in the physics department that complain about how this sort of thinking is causing MIT standards to go to crap. (You mean we are passing over people that can build nuclear reactors over someone that has better personality? This is crap.) Now people that think like this don't control undergraduate admissions, but they do control graduate admissions and promotion and hiring in the departments.

I should point out that one *good* thing about MIT is that students get involved in these sorts of debates more so than in other school. In a lot of other schools, the administration make these decisions and the students just get ignored, but one good thing about MIT is that there is this attitude that if you were good enough to get in, that your opinions on what MIT should be really do matter.

 

[twofish-quant]

1. It is not the place that makes you excellent.

It would be nice if this were true, but I don't know if it is or isn't.

Also, in some sense, I know this *isn't* true for a lot of people. I have relatives that are just as smart and hard working as me, but because I happen to have grown up in the US, I got a lot further than they did.

The other thing is that one good thing about MIT is that they don't have weed out classes for physics. I have seen students that I think would do decent at MIT get weeded out at UTexas Austin. Pretty sad.

Go read some books, help out in a lab, learn to code, build a forge, whatever; there's a million things that are better for your long-term education than hand-wringing and pearl-clutching over the 'system'.

And then you find that it may not matter. You work hard, learn to code, and then some idiot MIT/Harvard graduate screws up the world economy, and you are in the unemployment line.

 

[twofish-quant]

I see people at my own university that are convinced their life will be over if they don't get into MIT for graduate school and then half-*** homework assignments and labs.

I've seen people at MIT that aren't that interested in homework assignments and labs, but then either get excite about some area of research or else muddle through and get decent engineering jobs.

Some of the people in my living area were members of the "square root club", that's when the square root of your GPA was higher than your GPA itself. The motto of the "square root club" was "my degree will look like your degree." There are people that manage to muddle through MIT getting barely the grades to pass, and curiously they tend to do OK in the end.

The people that tend to have serious problems at MIT are people that come in obsessed with grades, and then totally freak out freshman year.

Something about MIT students are that they tend to be very self-motivated. If anything the students are *too* self-motivated.

If you want to be a top-notch scientist, it's not as easy as gaining entry into a particular school. There are many more (and arguably, more important) things you must do to be excellent that you can do at ANY decent school.

Don't know if this is true or not. Also the most important thing that you must do if you want a career in physics is *DO NOT BURN OUT*.

2. It is absolutely pointless to bend four years of your life to the sole goal of gaining admission to a particular college.

One thing to remember. What happens if you win? Let suppose you go through hell, and you end up at MIT. OK, let's suppose you go through more hell, and you end up at Harvard graduate school. Then there is post-doc hell, junior faculty hell, senior faculty hell, and then you die. The odds are at some people you will fail. But suppose you don't. You spend your entire life fighting to get ahead, and then you die.

 

[Mépris]

One thing to remember. What happens if you win? Let suppose you go through hell, and you end up at MIT. OK, let's suppose you go through more hell, and you end up at Harvard graduate school. Then there is post-doc hell, junior faculty hell, senior faculty hell, and then you die. The odds are at some people you will fail. But suppose you don't. You spend your entire life fighting to get ahead, and then you die.

Hahaha, my mother always looks at me and sighs whenever I say this. :)

 

[Mépris]

That confuses me, because I've often heard how incredibly rare it is for MIT to accept students from, say, India. Perhaps it's just India though...

Just about every Indian who has achieved at least 60% (overall grade) in the science-stream, 12th standard in India applies to the IIT. There are seven of them I believe and were the first few, were set up by people from American colleges, including MIT. Every year, there are about 400k students who sit for the entrance exams to go there and lot of these students apply to MIT. And even these seven institutes can't accommodate all competent students which is why they are ruthless (that's how I see it anyway) in their admission process. Apparently once you're inside, it's a different story but I wouldn't know. In any case, when you have so many hundreds of students from India *alone* applying to MIT, then yeah, maybe the one or two who do get in can be seen as "few".

As far as I'm aware, the "big schools" don't have a specific quota with regards to nationality or ethnicity. I might be wrong on this one though.

Yes and really, in the grand scheme of things, who cares who judges who for what.

Also, there are a few (and growing) universities that have a rule where if your family doesn't make something like $150k or $200k a year, your tuition is waived. I think Columbia is actually one of them so you may not pay period (outside of living expenses which must be hell in their own right).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Need-blind_admission
http://www.studentaffairs.columbia.edu/finaid/eligibility/contribution.php

Yes, Columbia is one of them. And it's a fairly long list.

 

[Mépris]

Clever marketing. Big name universities have billions of dollars and have money to spend on marketing themselves.

Why? It's not like they need the money from undergrad students. In lots of cases, they don't charge much! Is this related to the "power" thing?

That's good. The one thing that MIT is not is boring. If your experience is anything like mine, you will have moments of shear frustration and terror. But that's better than being bored. The other thing that is nice about MIT is that MIT doesn't really try to mold students to an MIT-type, so you can usually find some group of people that you fit in with.

IF I win, then we'll see. But it sounds good. I intend on finding employment (maybe "apprentice" mechanic; I know someone) and work for a year or so first. I'm eighteen and I haven't earned a single penny. I want to work. And meet different people. I think my views on many things are too skewed and that will change me in some ways. I also want a break from school.

Also, why do you say that Harvard is so different? Were you a student there for long?

I later found out that this wasn't an accident. It turns out that the producer of the X-files Chris Carter has a brother that is a professor at MIT. So I'm pretty sure that MIT provided some inspiration for the X-files.

A quick google search reveals that three persons were grad students at MIT in the show.

My parents grew up in Japanese-occupied China, so their interest in science and engineering was to kick out the Japanese army, and make sure nothing like that happens again. It stinks if you don't have power.

Interesting.

Some people do. Some people don't. Also even the people that do genuinely care may not be able to do anything to help you.

I don't *necessarily* need them. I won't refuse help but...Malawi Institute of Tech or Massachusetts - I'll do what I can to get what I want. The good thing here, is that all this debate and reading on universities and courses over the past few months (it might've been going for more than a year, come to think of it) got me thinking more and I'm slowly coming towards more tangible things. I know I want to study Physics up until at least the undergrad level. I also know that I want to travel and that I want a boat. I'd also like to make my parents happy but I think I've already done a third of the work on that. Because of the situation that they've been in all their lives, the fact that I want something is enough to make them happy. When I start earning money, they will be happy. When I buy the boat, if they're still alive by then, then I guess regardless of what I do for them (directly), they'll be happier still.

One thing that has been highly controversial is "what is MIT?" For example, there are people in the admissions office that say "we'll we didn't admit the guy that built the nuclear reactor, and we care a lot about personality."

On the other hand, there are people in the physics department that complain about how this sort of thinking is causing MIT standards to go to crap. (You mean we are passing over people that can build nuclear reactors over someone that has better personality? This is crap.) Now people that think like this don't control undergraduate admissions, but they do control graduate admissions and promotion and hiring in the departments.

Then you have this guy (http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/apply/the_selection_process_application_reading_committee_and_decisions/its_more_than_a_job.shtml" ) who gets all emo about everything. If that's the kind of guy who's in charge of the admissions process, then "regular kids" have more of a chance at getting in. I don't know whether the guy is hopelessly emotional or hypocritical.

I should point out that one *good* thing about MIT is that students get involved in these sorts of debates more so than in other school. In a lot of other schools, the administration make these decisions and the students just get ignored, but one good thing about MIT is that there is this attitude that if you were good enough to get in, that your opinions on what MIT should be really do matter.

Some schools are too big to allow for such things as well but whatever the reason may be, I think that it's great.

 

[twofish-quant]

Why? It's not like they need the money from undergrad students.

You get talented young students, brainwash them for four years, let them go become rich and powerful and then every now and then they get a call from the school asking them do donate cash money. This money let's them recruit the next generation of young students.

Not that there is anything wrong with this.

Also, why do you say that Harvard is so different? Were you a student there for long?

Harvard is a little different from MIT since Harvard tries a bit harder to mold its students into a particularly personality type. Again, nothing wrong with this, but it's a different system. MIT is two subway stops from Harvard, and I took classes there.

Also, I think it's a little weird that I tend to see lots of people from MIT talk about MIT in these sorts of groups. I don't see that many people from Harvard, Stanford, or Yale talk about Harvard, Stanford, or Yale.

If that's the kind of guy who's in charge of the admissions process, then "regular kids" have more of a chance at getting in.

The problem boils down to the low admissions rate. There are just too many good applicants, and not enough places, so any sort of admissions criterion is going to be semi-bogus and irrational. I think everyone at MIT realizes that this is a problem, and things like Open Courseware are ways of getting around the problem.

You do what you can.

I don't know whether the guy is hopelessly emotional or hypocritical.

I don't think he is either. However, what does happen is that you have different people with different ideas. Someone that thinks that MIT admissions is "lowering standards" is less likely to be blogging about it.

Also, there are things that people don't talk about. One thing that scares the daylights out of everyone that is involved with admissions is that they'll admit someone that has a mental or medical crisis at MIT.

Some schools are too big to allow for such things as well but whatever the reason may be, I think that it's great.

That's the dilemma. On the one hand, it's a horrible thing that you can only admit 1000 students a year. On the other hand, if you admit millions the way that University of Phoenix does, MIT stops being MIT. People are trying to work though this sort of dilemma.

One other interesting thing is that for an institute that prides itself on being at the cutting edge, decision making at MIT can be slow and bureaucratic, and it can take years or decades to get something done.

 

[twofish-quant]

That confuses me, because I've often heard how incredibly rare it is for MIT to accept students from, say, India. Perhaps it's just India though...

It's not.

http://web.mit.edu/iso/stats_10-11/general.shtml

 

[twofish-quant]

However, if money is important and you want to go to another school for whatever reason, then I'm pretty sure any sane person would agree that going to Harvard because your family went there is a bad reason to go there.

Why?

Also, if you have a parent that went to Harvard (or any other elite university), you are much more likely to get in...

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/5/11/admissions-fitzsimmons-legacy-legacies/

 

[Mépris]

You get talented young students, brainwash them for four years, let them go become rich and powerful and then every now and then they get a call from the school asking them do donate cash money. This money let's them recruit the next generation of young students.

Not that there is anything wrong with this.

Did you get one of these schools?

Harvard is a little different from MIT since Harvard tries a bit harder to mold its students into a particularly personality type. Again, nothing wrong with this, but it's a different system. MIT is two subway stops from Harvard, and I took classes there.

Whenever I've seen the mention of Harvard, you often have this MIT v/s Harvard thing going on and I never really got that. Maybe I got the wrong impression. In any event, the culture of both schools seem appealing.

Also, I think it's a little weird that I tend to see lots of people from MIT talk about MIT in these sorts of groups. I don't see that many people from Harvard, Stanford, or Yale talk about Harvard, Stanford, or Yale.

I don't know what I'm supposed to make out of this... haha

The problem boils down to the low admissions rate. There are just too many good applicants, and not enough places, so any sort of admissions criterion is going to be semi-bogus and irrational. I think everyone at MIT realizes that this is a problem, and things like Open Courseware are ways of getting around the problem.

You do what you can.

I love 6.01 and I don't think I've ever been "taught" a physics class better than this. But that's the one course. Not all of them are taught by competent teachers. I'm not certain if it was 18.01 (multivariable calc, I think) or another Maths course, but it bored me to death and I switched to Berkeley's offering of the same course, which I enjoyed more.

I don't think going to any of the "big schools" for the teaching alone is a good reason. Stanford, Berkeley and MIT all have numerous courses freely available online! If one is interested enough, figuring out which books to use and how to find solutions to certain problems is achievable.

Also, there are things that people don't talk about. One thing that scares the daylights out of everyone that is involved with admissions is that they'll admit someone that has a mental or medical crisis at MIT.

Talk about (potential) bad publicity. "MIT freshman found dead in dorm room." Okay, maybe I'm pushing this a bit too far...

 

[mheslep]

...
The other social problem is that we are in a "winner take all" society. People believe if they don't make it into the right schools and meet the right people, that they are doomed. The problem is that I can't say that this belief is incorrect.

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? Can you not consider instead that the problem is an obsession with notoriety and fame and the life depicted by reality TV shows? Failure to become famous or notorious is hardly synonymous with being doomed?

 

[twofish-quant]

Did you get one of these schools?

MIT class of 1991.

Whenever I've seen the mention of Harvard, you often have this MIT v/s Harvard thing going on and I never really got that. Maybe I got the wrong impression. In any event, the culture of both schools seem appealing.

It's like Canada. One important part of the Canadian identity is that Canada is not the United States. One important part of the MIT identity is that it is not Harvard. Also, I ended up very, very strongly disliking the culture of Harvard. It's "elitist in a bad way."

I don't think going to any of the "big schools" for the teaching alone is a good reason. Stanford, Berkeley and MIT all have numerous courses freely available online!

For MIT, it's a particularly bad reason. Going to MIT for the classroom teaching is like going to NYC for the peace and quiet or to the Grand Canyon for fine Italian dining. The professors at MIT are generally not particularly good at classroom teaching.

You go to get brainwashed into thinking in a certain way. Also, one reason for going to MIT is that everyone is "serious." One of my fun stories happened sophomore year, with a class that I fortunately didn't take, but some of my friends did. The professor ended up being totally incompetent. So the students and faculty "worked around" the professor.

This has some consequences. If you go to a major state university, and the students think that you stink as a professor, then maybe the students are just lazy or unprepared. If you have a class at MIT, and the students think you stink as a professor, then there is a good likelihood that you really do stink as a professor. Anyone that is lazy or unprepared is just not getting into MIT, which means that if you get in, people believe that your opinions really matter.

If one is interested enough, figuring out which books to use and how to find solutions to certain problems is achievable.

But education is more than books and classes.

Talk about (potential) bad publicity. "MIT freshman found dead in dorm room." Okay, maybe I'm pushing this a bit too far...

Google for "Elizabeth Shin"

The good thing about MIT is that it is a high pressure/high stress environment in which you can push yourself to your limits. The dark side of this which everyone worries about is what happens when you hit your limits.

 

[twofish-quant]

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. 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.

Can you not consider instead that the problem is an obsession with notoriety and fame and the life depicted by reality TV shows? Failure to become famous or notorious is hardly synonymous with being doomed?

No that's not the problem.

The problem is that I've been unemployed and I know people have been in worse employment situations than me. It stinks. 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. I think he is right about that, and I've spend a non-trivial amount of my time getting into the "rich getting richer" rather than the "poor getting poorer" group. I managed to get into that group, but there was a lot of luck involved, and one thing that helped was my MIT degree.

Now that I'm definitely in the "rich getting richer" group, I'm trying to figure out what to do next.

 

[Mépris]

MIT class of 1991.

Typo! I meant "call". Did you donate anything to them?

Was it just a "Hey, how you doin' Fish? Yeah, we wondering if you could..." :D

It's like Canada. One important part of the Canadian identity is that Canada is not the United States. One important part of the MIT identity is that it is not Harvard. Also, I ended up very, very strongly disliking the culture of Harvard. It's "elitist in a bad way."

I've been among people of this sort. Pompous rich kids. Maybe they don't do it on purpose...Some of them were cool enough but in general, I didn't like them. They had their little cliques at school.

For MIT, it's a particularly bad reason. Going to MIT for the classroom teaching is like going to NYC for the peace and quiet or to the Grand Canyon for fine Italian dining. The professors at MIT are generally not particularly good at classroom teaching.

Haha! I wonder how the people who expected it to be this way turn out when they go in. If they get in.

You go to get brainwashed into thinking in a certain way. Also, one reason for going to MIT is that everyone is "serious." One of my fun stories happened sophomore year, with a class that I fortunately didn't take, but some of my friends did. The professor ended up being totally incompetent. So the students and faculty "worked around" the professor.

This has some consequences. If you go to a major state university, and the students think that you stink as a professor, then maybe the students are just lazy or unprepared. If you have a class at MIT, and the students think you stink as a professor, then there is a good likelihood that you really do stink as a professor. Anyone that is lazy or unprepared is just not getting into MIT, which means that if you get in, people believe that your opinions really matter.

"Early signs" of power? If when you get in there, you start developing that kind of mindset, once you get outside...?

But education is more than books and classes.

Yes. That's why I'm applying.

Google for "Elizabeth Shin"

The good thing about MIT is that it is a high pressure/high stress environment in which you can push yourself to your limits. The dark side of this which everyone worries about is what happens when you hit your limits.

Do you know the English word of Shin? Oh, the irony.

Sucks to be her. Or not be her. In any event, her wiki page mentions that she had attempted to kill herself before even going to MIT. Because she wasn't valedictorian of her class. If it wasn't going to happen at college, it would've happened elsewhere. Maybe her work place or home. Honestly, I don't think that kind of mentality is going to get anyone *too* far. There is more humility and more to learn in accepting failure.

I failed Physics. Two or three times. I reconsidered my approach, stopped slacking and found other teaching material and teachers. Now I love it more than I used to.

 

[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.