Talk:Massachusetts Institute of Technology/Archive03

Interview
Thanks for the advice guys. I couldn’t find anything on the main page, but does MIT have any eating clubs or special organizations? Also, what are some good questions to ask the interviewer?

I'm going for an interview with an MIT alum tomorrow. Any tips? What kind of good things or interesting stuff should I say about MIT?


 * Be yourself?


 * I'm sure MIT has changed a lot, but I'll bet it is still a school where they care a lot about your basic smarts and hacker instincts, and are not quite as concerned about your emotional intelligence, ability to relate to people, etc. That's not to say you shouldn't apply underarm deodorant, etc. but I would not suggest boning up on MIT to impress the interviewer.


 * Actually, come to think of it, the interviewer would probably rather show off his knowledge of MIT than listen to yours... and when I was there MIT rather encouraged people to ask intelligent questions... and not to bullshit... so... ummm... 02:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll second my fellow alum on this. Personally, I felt pretty sure I'd get accepted when my interviewer mentioned how I'd probably be able to do fewer activities there than I had in high school (I did Science Olympiad, debate team, scholars' bowl team and literary magazine&mdash;every type of geek except band and theater).  Maybe this advice is too late, but I'd say you're better off answering the interviewer's questions about yourself and&mdash;if they're a good interviewer they'll give you the opportunity&mdash;sounding out their knowledge about the Institute.  In every admissions and scholarship interview I did, and boy were there a few of them, I asked the grownups involved what they regretted about their school, and I always got interesting answers.


 * Anville 15:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Anville. Do you think there will be any drawbacks to asking as to what they regretted?


 * Well, you might irritate them by the mere suggestion that the Institvte is imperfect. . . but I don't think it's likely.  (smile)  Certainly, I didn't meet anyone there who believed that the place and its policies were inerrant.  I believe it's better to project the impression that you're a rational and inquisitive being who is capable of making the best out of a less-than-optimal situation, rather than the impression of being an MIT groupie.  Just my thoughts, of course!  (And if you do find yourself at the Institvte next fall, I suggest looking up Ben Snyder's The Hidden Curriculum in the library.)  Anville 07:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Activating the emotional-intelligence-simulation features in my positronic brain, I would speculate that it would not be wise to tell an alum what is imperfect about the Institute, but that it would be quite safe to ask. And asking an alum what they regret about their time at the Institute is safer yet. I mean, even if you got the sort of mindless booster that is so prevalent at lesser schools though never at MIT, they could always give you a safe answer like "I regret that I didn't buy a second Brass Rat to reserve for dress occasions," or "I regret that I lived in Burton House," or "I regret that I wasted time dating instead of taking a heavier course load." Dpbsmith (talk) 12:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

"Beaver vocabulary from another culture"
From Mark Liebermann's Language Log blog post, 4 December 2003:


 * As Bill Poser's fascinating post on Carrier beaver words reminded me, both Bill and I are alumni of an institution whose totem has been the beaver ever since 1914. In that year, "Lester D. Gardner 1898 presented the idea to MIT president Richard C. Maclaurin at the annual dinner of the Technology Club of New York." The official reconstruction of Gardner's argument runs like this:


 * "We first thought of the kangaroo, which, like Tech, goes forward by leaps and bounds. Then we considered the elephant. He is wise, patient, strong, hard working, and like all those who graduate from Tech, has a good tough hide. But neither of these were American animals. We turned to [William Temple] Hornaday's book on the animals of North America and instantly chose the beaver. The beaver not only typifies the Tech [student], but his habits are peculiarly our own. The beaver is noted for his engineering, mechanical skills, and industry. His habits are nocturnal. He does his best work in the dark."


 * Not surprisingly, MIT students and staff have developed an extensive beaver-related lexicon over the intervening 89 years, just as fascinating in its own way as the Carrier beaver vocabulary. On Bill's account, the Carrier beaver words mostly refer to actual beavers or to aspects of their life and death. By contrast, nearly all the MIT beaver terms appears to refer to symbols or rites of various cultic groups, which are known to be thick on the ground at that estimable institution.

A nice break from ratings, isn't it? In the interests of scholarship, I should note that Language Hat provides similar chants used at Caltech, Rice and RPI. Anville 14:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The word "castrate" is derived from the Latin name of the beaver, Castor, based on the mediaeval myth that "The beaver is hunted for its testicles, which are valued for making medicine. When the beaver sees that it cannot escape from the hunter, it bites off its testicles and throws them to the hunter, who then stops pursuing the beaver. If another hunter chases the beaver, it shows the hunter that it has already lost its testicles and so is spared." Voo Doo once suggested that MIT chose this mascot as a signal of the sort of sacrifice the 'Tute expected... Dpbsmith (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Voo Doo being naturally the one and only good source for understanding the Institvte's real nature. I should know; I wrote for it.  (wicked grin) Anville 22:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I will always remember that John F. Kennedy was assassinated on a Friday, because it was the day Voo Doo came out, and when I heard about the assassination my first reaction was that it must be a Voo Doo stunt, Voo Doo not exactly being a gathering place for New Frontiersmen. A false assassination rumor would have displayed all of the subtlety and good taste for which Voo Doo was renowned. I always found Voo Doo laugh-out-loud funny. Best-remembered Voo Doo article: a petite Voo Doo Doll of the Month, presumably topless, but her modesty preserved by a copy of Romer's well-known textbook "The Vertebrate Body: Shorter Edition." With the caption "I'd like to see what's between the covers of the book she's reading." When for some reason best imagined, they were forced to stop using live models for their Voo Doo Dolls, they had an issue featuring a Barbie doll, in provocative poses, as the Voo Doo Doll of the Month. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Boosterism in opening paragraph
"MIT is known as a world leader in..." seems like unnecessary use of peacock terms. Who, exactly, "knows" MIT as a world leader? If someone can find a quotation from someone reasonably well-known saying "MIT is a world leader in..." I'd accept that, and if MIT really is "known as a world leader" it shouldn't be hard to find someone, somewhere, who's said so.

Actually I'm not really sure what being a leader in this context would mean, unless it means that other schools are patterning their educational philosophy and curriculum on MIT's. If so, it would be more appropriate to document and say that.

The vague claims of notable alumni are rather boosterish, but in any case they do not belong in the introductory paragraph as they do not say anything specific about MIT. MIT is a big, famous, excellent school and it has lots of notable alumni just like every other big, famous excellent school. Personally I'd prefer to let people read MIT people and judge for themselves.

The anon is complaining about me, as I moved some similar material from Columbia's opening paragraph into a separate section. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is how the Britannica handles MIT in its opening paragraph:


 * privately controlled coeducational institution of higher learning famous for its scientific and technological training and research. It was chartered by the state of Massachusetts in 1861 and became a land-grant college in 1863. William Barton Rogers, MIT's founder and first president, had worked for years to organize an institution of higher learning devoted entirely to scientific and technical training, but the outbreak of the American Civil War delayed the opening of the school until 1865, when 15 students enrolled for the first classes, held in Boston. MIT moved to Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 1916; its campus is located along the Charles River. Under the administration of president Karl T. Compton (1930–48), the institute evolved from a well-regarded technical school into an internationally known centre for scientific and technical research. During the Great Depression, its faculty established prominent research centres in a number of fields, most notably analog computing (led by Vannevar Bush) and aeronautics (led by Charles Stark Draper). During World War II, MIT administered the Radiation Laboratory, which became the nation's leading centre for radar research and development, as well as other military laboratories. After the war, MIT continued to maintain strong ties with military and corporate patrons, who supported basic and applied research in the physical sciences, computing, aerospace, and engineering.

No rankings. No Nobel Prize counts. No boosterism. All it feels necessary to say in the way of peck-ordering with other schools, is a mention in a later paragraph that "Admission is extremely competitive." It continues to outline the major schools, notes that "While MIT is perhaps best known for its programs in engineering and the physical sciences, other areas—notably economics, political science, urban studies, linguistics, and philosophy—are also strong," and devotes quite a bit of the article to enumerating unique facilities and laboratories. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I have the feeling we won't be able to write a good lead until the rest of the article, particularly the "History" section, is in decent shape. Funny how Britannica mentions Karl Compton, and we don't.  (By the bye, which edition are you quoting?)  Anville 23:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, the 2004 CD. The last time I did a spot-check, the content of the CD edition did seem to match that of the print edition. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * A number of the recent edits to the page to remove POV have been just ridiculous, and smack of someone who either wants to attack MIT or has a pathological need to downplay all of its achievements. I hope everyone would agree that the Encarta entry (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761555310/Massachusetts_Institute_of_Technology.html) has no reason to be POV, and yet it describes MIT as "one of the world’s leading research universities" and holding "a worldwide reputation for teaching and research".  These phrases and others have all been removed from this article even though they are objective facts! An encyclopedia entry should always highlight what is special and unique about the subject being described.  The recent "POV" edits to the MIT entry only serve to dilute the entry's actual utility. -- BrassRat 17:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It smacks of someone who is embarrassed by immodest presentation of his alma mater.


 * Objective facts can be boosterism. Advertising copywriters are very skilled in creating misleading impressions through the clever presentation of selected facts. A very good example of this sort of technique is the spin on MIT's U. S. News and World Report ranking. MIT currently places seventh. The straightforward way to report this is simply to note that it is in seventh place.


 * To report "it is one of five universities to consistently receive the highest peer assessment score of 4.9/5.0" is spin in two ways. First, it creates a vague impression that MIT is somehow or other in the top five when in fact it is seventh. Second, it chooses to use the peer assessment score. Why? This is usually considered to be one of the most subjective and least reliable components of the U. S. News ranking. That, after all, is why U. S. News includes other factors as well. Well now, why do you suppose the contributor elected to use this metric? Is it because the contributor disagrees with U. S. News and thinks they should use the pure "peer assessment" score? Or was the element of the score selectively chosen because it happens to put MIT in a better light than using the straight ranking?


 * I agree with you that an encyclopedia article should highlight what is special and unique about the subject. In fact, that's my point. Ranking seventh in anything isn't particularly special or unique. Nor is there anything special or unique about a big major university's alumni and faculty including "many prominent politicians, corporate executives, writers, astronauts, scientists, and inventors."


 * Noam Chomsky is special and unique. Henry Kendall was special and unique. Doc Edgerton was special and unique. That's why we have List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology people and it speaks for itself. To simply take the subheads out of this list, glom them together into a sentence is silly. So is a count of Nobel laureates with an MIT association of one kind or another. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I had let that particular U.S. News quotation stand, because at least it referred to something which covered multiple years. I have no particular desire to have it stay; in an ideal world, we would have so much good content that rankings would be superfluous....  Anville 22:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposal for wording of the "rank" statement (see above)
Well, I believe the U. S. News rankings are almost pure evil. I think they deliberately publish data that has a signal-to-noise ratio of about 3 db, and I think they do it because it guarantees that the rankings will change significantly every year, creating excitement and an incentive to buy their magazine. But if we must mention them, we should try to describe them in a way that
 * does not create any impression of false precision
 * does not slant the data to put MIT's best foot forward
 * does plainly cite the single number most fetishized, namely the most recent overall rank number in the "Top National Universities" list

I propose:


 * As of 2006 MIT ranks seventh (tied with Caltech) in U. S. News and World Report's list of top national universities. In the year 2000, at the height of the tech boom, U. S. News briefly ranked MIT third (the same year in which it ranked Caltech first).

This avoids judgements like "consistently," gives a couple of data points to show the range, and shows what everybody knows: that MIT is one hell of a good school but not quite at the very top.

But I have to say anyone who believes that in the year 2000 Caltech was really the best school in the nation, and that over the last few years both Caltech and MIT deteriorated... while Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Penn, Duke, and Stanford truly shaped up... well, I wonder what course they were enrolled in. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It's because of all of these issues that the current wording is optimal. The US News rankings are based on a formula which changes from year to year.  It's supposed to, and reflects not much more than how they want to put their data together.  On the other hand, the interesting fact is that the peer assessment scores for MIT, Harvard, Stanford, Yale and Princeton stand alone as the highest based on their survey data EVERY SINGLE YEAR.  This survey data is interesting and encyclopedic, the former is just another random magazine ranking. -- BrassRat 20:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "Where possible, rankings should be reported as numeric values, with years and sources provided; and as they are such specific facts, they should not occupy an article's lead section." -- Avoid academic boosterism. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Nobel prize counts
IMHO Nobel prize counts should not go in the lead paragraphs of university articles. They tell us nothing specific about a university. All leading research universities have Nobel laureates associated with them. People who are curious about this can go to our article on Nobel prizes by university affiliation.

Presumably the actual count is supposed to mean something, but I'm not sure what it could be other than boosterism. As a metric of university wonderfulness, it's pretty dubious data. Other things being equal, bigger universities will have more Nobel laureates, for example, so the fact that University of Chicago has 78 laureates hardly means it is better than MIT; conversely, even though Swarthmore College has only 4, a Swarthmore booster could argue that that is very impressive relative to its size. But of course if we wanted to correct for size, what size should we be using? The total enrollment? The size of the grad school? The size of the departments in fields for which Nobels are awarded?

But then, what ought to count? If Nobel laureate counts are supposed to speak to the important and quality of the university's research activities, presumably what matters is Nobel laureates who were at the university during the years when they were doing their work. Although the number Nobel laureates who are regularly engaged in undergraduate instruction would be interesting, as showing something about the institution's educational philosophy.

In any case, a factoid like this, if it means anything, indicates something or other about the caliber of the university's people, and it belongs in the MIT People section. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think your obsession with analyzing all facts only from the perspective of what the intent of the editor was is not only spurious and incorrect, but biased. The Nobel Prize count of an institution is just as objective and useful a piece of data as its enrollment, acceptance rate, endowment or date of founding.  Is it boosterism to call Oxford the oldest university in Britain?  Please calm down and figure out useful data to add rather than useful data to delete.  My two cents. -- BrassRat 21:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Naval Architecture/Ocean Engineering/Course XIII????
Trying to trace this and finding only elliptical scraps of information... I believe that at one time MIT was an important naval architecture school. This seems not to be true any more. Apparently it was renamed "Ocean Engineering???" And then, this year, Ocean Engineering was, absorbed into Mechanical Engineering.

Can anyone confirm/deny?

Princeton Review does not include MIT on a list of schools offering a naval architecture major. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Have you come across this: ? At the end of the page it refers to a book and gives the call number T171.M4224.O248 2000. btm 05:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Bingo! No, I hadn't. Thanks. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Improvement drive
Asteroid deflection strategies has been nominated on WP:IDRIVE. Support it with your vote if you want it to be improved.--Fenice 22:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

"The MIT of..."
There is a section of MIT in popular culture called "The MIT of..." that lists a bunch of schools that have been called the MIT of (region). While the section does have references, it strikes me that the only purpose of this section is for it boost MIT to the reader. I'll quote Dpbsmith from Articles for deletion/Harvard of the Midwest:
 * This is a completely idiosyncratic nontopic. It verges on original research because, unlike Public Ivies, there is no definitive list of which schools are included, and no objective standard for which schools qualify. A few sources are cited but they do not demonstrate that the phrase is a true idiom with a well-defined meaning.

IMO, the Harvard article should be deleted, as should the "MIT of..." section. btm 21:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I toned it down. Since, unlike the Harvard of the Midwest it at least cited sources instead of merely asserting "Google and ye shall find," I didn't delete it altogether, and I tried to preserve the arguably valid point that MIT has an archetypic status, deserved or undeserved. Exact phrase "MIT of the" has 10,800 Google hits, "CalTech of the" 169. I didn't analyze the actual hits carefully for relevance--in both cases most hits are IRrelevant, the phrase is not being used idiomatically--but I really do think MIT has an archetypic status that CalTech does not. Personally, I really do believe MIT is 63.9 times as archetypic as CalTech, even though it is only 1.16 times as good. To slide-rule accuracy, of course. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC) P. S. I'm not arguing strongly that the section should be kept. I'm just reporting what I did and why. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I pretty much agree with you here. MIT is indeed the standard to which other technical schools are compared and even though Caltech may deserve a similar status, it hasn't quite got it.  It's certainly fair to capture this status, but it shouldn't come across as silly and overt boosterism.  I think you've improved the section to that end. btm 07:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm more or less in agreement too. I moved the string of inline hyperlinks to that article's talk page, since I can't quite see the attraction of having a one-sentence paragraph which is almost entirely bracketed numbers.  Anville 18:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: MIT
FYI, I've put the above category on a vote for rename to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Semiconscious ·  talk  09:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Reference styles
We seem to have stumbled into an unholy mixture of reference styles. Does anyone actually feel up to slogging through the article and changing them over, or is this one more excessively nitpicky thing I will be doing in my "copious free time"? Anville 11:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of "selectivity" and MIT vis-a-vis the Big Three
It is not neutral to present rankings while omitting context that would enable evaluations of the meaning of the rankings.

In the United States, Harvard, Yale, and Princeton have a special status deriving from their historical connection to the WASP establishment. U. S. News uses somewhat ambiguous language to explain how it evaluates universities, and uses various seemingly objective measures that can stand in as surrogates for social standing. But the bottom line is that U. S. News and everyone else knows that Harvard, Yale, and Princeton are special, and U. S. News validates its methodology by its ability to confirm that special status. The New York Times reported that given their weighting methodology (which includes things such as alumni giving):


 * it's easy to guess who's going to end up on top: Harvard, Yale and Princeton round out the first three essentially every year. In fact, when asked how he knew his system was sound, Mel Elfin, the rankings' founder, often answered that he knew it because those three schools always landed on top. When a new lead statistician, Amy Graham, changed the formula in 1999 to what she considered more statistically valid, the California Institute of Technology jumped to first place. Ms. Graham soon left, and a slightly modified system pushed Princeton back to No. 1 the next year. (Thompson, Nicholas (2003): "The Best, The Top, The Most;" The New York Times, August 3, 2003, Education Life Supplement, p. 24)

Now, here are a couple of facts that are just about as neutral as any such statements can possibly be:


 * MIT's admissions policy has been substantially more meritocratic than the admissions policy of the Big Three, has never taken into account factors that correlate with social status, never had a restrictive policy toward particular ethnic groups, etc.


 * Harvard, Yale, and Princeton have a special status in the United States that is somewhat independent of their academic merit. Numerous references can be cited to bear this out; e.g. by sociologists counting entries in the Social Register, or (much easier to verify if one doesn't happen to have a copy of the Social Register handy) examining the schools attended by Presidents of the United States.

(Actually I'm more certain about the second statement than the first).

If we are going to talk about MIT's admissions being "selective" at all--and I for one would just as soon omit this datum--then we need to point out what this selectivity means.

It does not mean the same thing as Harvard, Yale, and Princeton's "selectivity." In circles that care about such things&mdash;and a look at who gets to be a Presidential candidate should show that there are still circles that do&mdash;an MIT degree is not the equivalent of a degree from one of the Big Three.

Now, I personally happen to detest this aspect of American society, as well as the veiled way in which U. S. News etc. present their findings. But if we are going to talk about selectivity and rankings and such we should do it accurately and honestly, rather than omitting anything negative about MIT's status and pretending that MIT is somehow is or is close to being equivalent to the members of Big Three. This would be true only if university reputations depended only on their academic quality. U. S. News knows better.Dpbsmith (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * At the risk of sounding like a sockpuppet, a broken record or a poorly dubbed ghost, I agree with these sentiments. Back when this article actually had a "Criticisms of MIT" section, it quoted some official type saying "Too many MIT graduates are working for Harvard graduates."  I seem also to recall a cartoon&mdash;maybe it came out of a recent Voo Doo&mdash;where an angry man in a suit screams at a programmer, "My MBA from Cornhusk U. says to get back in your cubicle, code-boy!"  (This quotation is of course approximate.)  Anville 20:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think your reasoning is sound and verifiable. I'm just not sure that the statement in question is really informative or relevant, since it's not a distinctive aspect of MIT in particular so much as schools that are not Harvard, Yale or Princeton. That is, I'm not sure this is really an important piece of information unless you can somehow support the claim that MIT's admissions is somehow extraordarily meritocratic among all schools, rather than merely compared to those three. --Mike Lin 21:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * An interesting argument, but very US-centric, and ignores the fact that MIT's reputation on the global stage is more important in a Wikipedia article. Let's face it, worldwide, MIT has a far bigger name in many (most?) circles than Yale and Princeton do, and internationally the US big three are probably Harvard, MIT and Stanford.  H/P/Y do indeed have a "special" place in American history (just like carmaker "Cadillac" does), but current American society, current world society, and American history are all different things.  The selectivity metric is just that, a metric based on numbers relating to admission.  The US News peer assessment score is closer to what you might think of as prestige, and it clearly disagrees with you.  I think the reason that some people might have a mixed up perception here is because there are many liberal arts majors that can't conceive of MIT being regarded as being as prestigious as Yale, and they're the ones that write the stories and newspapers.  But the US News peer assessment scores (and just about every other major ranking/survey you can pull out) bear out that each is super prestigious in its own way. - BrassRat 22:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) I have no problem with having a variety of viewpoints presented in this portion of the article.


 * 2) I'd be curious to see citations for "internationally the US big three are probably Harvard, MIT and Stanford." I don't say they aren't, I'm saying I don't know, and I've never personally heard such a thing. One colleague of mine who is a Russian emigre who has been here ten years told me that in Russia he had heard of Harvard but that MIT was a completely unfamiliar school to him. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The perception of Harvard, Stanford, and MIT as the top US schools internationally is more implicitly and explicitly conveyed. As in, rather than composing arguments asserting that these three are the most prestigious in the US, they are the three given most often as examples of the most prestigious US universities.  Here is an example from Singapore: "Recently, there were discussions on world-class universities. Names like Harvard, Stanford and MIT were mentioned in the local press. These universities take in only the best and brightest students and faculty from around the world." Another from Australia : "ANU is internationally recognised as Australia’s best research and teaching University [...] ranked the ANU with Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Stanford, MIT and the Sorbonne." Obviously your Russian friend wasn't studying in a scientific discipline; in general it seems that there is more ignorance of outstanding scientific institutions (and people) by humanities majors than vice versa, particularly in the US, where a lack of scientific or mathematical ability is unfortunately worn as a badge of honor by many. In countries where science and technology are more prestigious (e.g. India, Japan, etc.) the fact that MIT is regarded as the world's foremost scientific and technological university (you know you can find lots of citations for this, starting as close to US culture as Good Will Hunting) certainly places it firmly in the first rank. -- BrassRat 00:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Since 1998, US News switched to the current scheme of measuring academic reputation using "peer assessment scores" on a scale to 5.0, and Harvard, MIT, Stanford and Princeton have always received 4.9/5.0. Yale usually has as well, but in a couple of years dropped to 4.8.  Prior to 1998, they ranked "academic reputation" explicitly, with MIT, Harvard and Stanford usually being listed as tied for #1. A few years this fluctuated, with Princeton sometimes tying for #1, and Harvard and/or Stanford dropping a notch below.  Yale never tied for #1 prior to 1998. The one consistent factor has been that MIT has ranked #1 in academic reputation every year. MITalum 01:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with the present wording of the first three paragraphs (including MITalum's recent changes in phrasing). (I'm assuming this is all factually accurate; I don't have any copies of U. S. News at hand). I don't have any problem with the idea of MIT's academic reputation being comparable to that of the Big Three.
 * I think the fourth paragraph ("A British research made by The Times Higher in 2005...") should be excised per the verifiability policy unless someone cares to take the trouble to find and cite the source; I'm not going to go look for it because I don't think this item is needed, but I haven't removed it yet because it probably could be sourced if anyone wanted to. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added the link to the Times Higher Education Supplement, which someone else has already documented meticulously in another Wikipedia article. By the way, it appears from an academic reputation perspective that the "big three" according to US News is MIT, Harvard, and Stanford (in that order) with Princeton and Yale comparable but a bit behind.  Just an observation. -- BrassRat 03:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Not rhetorical: does U. S. News use the phrase "Big Three" in reference to these schools? Or are you just saying they rank number 1, 2, and 3 and therefore you believe that they could be called the "Big Three?'' Dpbsmith (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't use that phrase, but then again I'd never heard that phrase before someone wrote a Wikipedia article on it. From the age of the references it appears to be an antiquated expression that nobody ever uses anymore.  My point is that if we were to pick a modern "Big Three", according to US News it would appear that MIT, Harvard, and Stanford have the consistently greatest academic reputation in the country, and that your comment that MIT is "comparable to the Big Three [i.e. Harvard, Yale, Princeton]" does not really recognize that in modern times Yale and Princeton have a somewhat lesser academic reputation than do Harvard, MIT, and Stanford. -- BrassRat 20:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The "Big Three" is not a reference solely to academic reputation. In fact it was coined during the day of the "gentleman's C" and the Big Three were academically lax. It is in widespread current use (e.g. Karabel's "The Chosen") and I'll try to remember to document that. You may feel that MIT ought to be one of the Big Three, or that there should be a redefinition of the Big Three. If you check out the Penn article you'll see that similarly there are a number of people who say that Penn is or ought to be a member of "the Big Four." But there is no Big Four and neither Penn or MIT is one of the Big Three. IMHO it sucks (but of course I went to an academically excellent school with a meritocratic admissions policy and a strong antiauthoritarian culture, so what would you expect me to think?) I'll believe the Big Three belongs to the past when I see someone from MIT in the White House. (Jimmy Carter was close, but no cigar). Dpbsmith (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * A book specifically about university admissions at Harvard, Princeton and Yale is your example of being in widespread use? I'm not saying that MIT should be one of the "Big Three", what I'm saying is that that term holds little or no meaning in the modern day, except as an historical artifact.  And your point about US Presidents seems random but is also wrong -- the College of William and Mary would be more "Big Three" than Princeton if that were the criteria, and West Point would be just as much. My main point is that when you ask people to name the "best" US universities (note: not undergraduate colleges, but UNIVERSITIES), Harvard, MIT and Stanford is far more the accepted meme than Harvard, Yale and Princeton. -- BrassRat 21:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Find a good, verifiable reference for that being the "accepted meme" and put it in the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * (Quick rough reality check: Google Books search for exact phrase "Harvard, Yale and Princeton," limited to years 1980 through 2006 (though Google Books searches tend to be heavily weighted toward recent titles anyway): 688 pages on "Harvard, Yale and Princeton" date:1980-2006. Same on "Harvard, MIT and Stanford:" 15 pages on "Harvard, MIT and Stanford" date:1980-2006. Don't have any creative ideas on how to fine-tune the search to limit it to sources that are talking about the best universities.)
 * (On a side note, I'm not sure I know the context in which it matters which is the best "university" overall. If I'm interested in graduate work, surely I know what field I'm going to be in and surely I'd be more interested in knowing "which university has the best department of X" rather than "which is the best university." I mean, if I want to get a Master of Management in Hospitality, well, it would be silly to choose Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, or Stanford even though they are "better universities" than Cornell) Dpbsmith (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said before, it's tough to find people "arguing" for why a certain set of universities are the top group, since the folks that typically make the most vociferous arguments are the ones with vested interests. Thus, there's significantly more literature produced by grads of Harvard, Yale and Princeton on why their institutions are the best than there are non-grads making such arguments or explorations. Most mentions of Harvard, MIT and Stanford as the best US institutions are implied by their choice of those three as the example of the best institutions. Here's one example from a university guide in India, however, that I think typifies the views from there, China, and most of the world: "Schools like Harvard, Stanford, and MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), with arguably the best reputations in the world, get their rankings bounced around from being in the top few to being in the top teens. So what are their "real" rankings? Who knows! But we do know that, despite such variations in rankings, their reputation is very much intact and it isn’t going to change anytime soon."  The Times Higher Education supplement further validates this, as does the Nobel Prize count by institution, where Yale and Princeton fall far below institutions like Chicago, Columbia, Berkeley, Caltech, Hopkins and even Cornell.  That doesn't mean that Princeton and Yale are considered worse than Chicago, but it does mean that in certain circles, especially internationally, Chicago is more "famous" or "prestigious", and thus the common perception ends up balancing out the two (i.e. Berkeley roughly comparable in reputation to Princeton internationally). But amongst all of that data, Harvard, MIT, and Stanford consistently stand out, with the maximal combinations of fame, prestige, selectivity, Nobel Prizes, citations, etc. -- BrassRat 00:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

NRC Graham-Diamond ranking
The Graham-Diamond report, cited by BrassRat, is interesting and seems like a relevant thing to include in the Ranking section. However, it was formerly presented in this way:


 * According to the National Research Council, MIT enjoys the greatest overall research reputation in the United States.

In fact, the report contains eleven pairs of tables. In the first ten, universities are ranked by various programs, e.g. "engineering," "cell and developmental biology," etc. Each pair of tables contains one ranking by "reputation" and another by (variously) awards or citations received by faculty. Finally, the eleventh pair of tables, presumably the one being referred to, is "Top 50 Institutions Ranked by Mean Score of Reputation Rating and Citations or Awards Density of All Programs." Like the others, it is a pair, and MIT indeed ranks first in reputation, but only fourth in awards and citations.

I cannot think of any neutral reason for selectively mentioning one but not the other, so I've reworded this:


 * The National Research Council, in a 1995 study ranking research universities, placed MIT first in "mean score of reputation rating" and fourth for "citations or awards density" for all programs.

Interestingly, in table 8, "Engineering," MIT ranks first in reputation but only fifth in "citations/faculty." (Not surprisingly, MIT does not appear at all in table 10, "Top 20 Institutions in Arts and Humanities." Dpbsmith (talk) 12:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

St. Paul's Cathedral
There is a reference in the Recent Building Efforts section to St. Paul's Cathedral. Should this be St. Paul's Episcopal Cathedral in Boston? This makes sense to me, but I don't really know much about that building. It currently links to St. Paul's Cathedral in London, which is a plausible reference, but it doesn't really make much sense. Phil Bastian 14:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Excessively "numerous" other fields
I've made changes to the box with enrollments and faculty members. See this web site http://web.mit.edu/facts/faculty.shtml. It is faculty and not staff. MIT does not have a staff size of 992 ...

The enrollment comes from http://web.mit.edu/facts/enrollment.shtml.

Finally, there's a new degree granting program under the school of engineering which is a partnership between EECS, BE, and Biology. I've added that under schools. Last year the course web site classified it under school of engineering. This year they made a new catagory calling it "Interdisciplinary ..." where HST is being classified. Either way, it should not be left out of the school page Please check this web site http://web.mit.edu/catalogue/degre.inter.intro.shtml

I think it's good enough to say
 * MIT is one of the world's leading research institutions in science and technology.

I don't think it's reasonable to say
 * MIT is one of the world's leading research institutions in science and technology, as well as in numerous other fields, including management, engineering systems, economics, mathematics, linguistics, political science, limnology and philosophy.

But if we must enumerate these other fields, the opening paragraph should highlight those things that truly characterize MIT, things that illustrate its MIT-ness. If we must have that phrase at all, I think we should


 * limit the list to say, three items;
 * provide references for each; not just rankings that show that MIT is highly regarded in the field, but a citation that illustrates that MIT is practically a household word in that field.

BTW... does "MIT is one of the world's leading research institutions" suggest that it is not regarded as having comparable excellence in teaching? I personally thought the teaching at MIT was excellent, the barrier between teaching and research low, and I had the impression that researchers' participation in teaching was valued and encouraged by the Institute. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure on what the "leading research institution" remark implies about the quality of the teaching, but I have to ask&mdash;limnology? Why in blazes would a particular subdivision of hydrography be listed on a par with philosophy and mathematics?  Oh, yes, to make the list longer.  Excuse me.  Anville 19:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I would actually beg to differ regarding the statements above about MIT having good teaching. I believe it is below the quality of other similar-tiered institutions.  Class sizes are large throughout all four undergraduate years, especially as a freshmen, where my 8.01 class had about 400 students.  Professors have taken little interest in the academic success of myself or friends, even with "go-getters."  Because of the huge graduate student population, undergraduates receive less attention from researchers due to being less knowlegable than their graduate counterparts.  This is not the lament of one student, but the concensus of many. Dtemp 19:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The opening list of academic units and laboratories seems somewhat arbitrary in its inclusion of schools, academic programs, and laboratories which are all completely different levels of the organization. I think this should be shortened, simplified, or removed entirely from the introduction. You're making normative judgements about which labs/programs are the most prominent to the exclusion of others without any clear reason why these exemplify MIT. Whitehead, Broad, Lincolon, and Whitaker are all affiated with MIT, but are substantially independent from MIT itself. Likewise, ESD is a program within the engineering school, rather than a department, school or affiliate. CSAIL and RLA are large labs as well. I think more important things could be said in the introduction than listing a few of these places. Brianckeegan 20:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I rewrote the lead to mention (what I believe to be) more important things. Anville 19:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please note: I've been un-edited.  I don't have time to argue about this.  Someone else decide.  (I gave up hope long ago that this article would ever be a truly useful, well-written and comprehensive piece, but at least we could maybe make the first two paragraphs nice.)  Anville 19:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't think the edit was very well discussed. At least let's keep some of the current introduction with important labs/programs. We should also reference the MIT mission: http://web.mit.edu/facts/mission.shtml (Which describes 34 academic departments, not 26) Either way, your intro looks more like it's suited for the History section.  crl620 19:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I much prefer the new opening. Most of the names of labs, departments, etc. don't mean a great deal outside MIT. MIT has an Engineering Systems Division? About as meaningful as saying Harvard has a Division of Applied Sciences. The new opening says something specific about MIT, and focusses on things that are important.


 * This new opening is much better, but it could still be improved. Defining ourselves by sundry entities constrains the mission and accomplishment and is needlessly myopic. Brianckeegan 03:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I wrote the above before I peeked at the Britannica article, but a capsule history is exactly what the Britannica leads with, and in considerable detail. After saying "privately controlled coeducational institution of higher learning famous for its scientific and technological training and research," it goes on with William Barton Rogers; opening was delayed by the Civil War; moved across the river in 1916; became famous under Karl Taylor Compton's presidency; analog computing and Vannevar Bush; aeronautics and Charles Stark Draper; World War II and the radiation laboratory; and "After the war, MIT continued to maintain strong ties with military and corporate patrons." Dpbsmith (talk) 00:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Mission: "We should also reference the MIT mission..." I don't object as long as it's just a link. But I don't see why. Most other university articles don't. Certainly the Britannica doesn't. However, before doing this, I would suggest the following test. Pick a professor at random and ask him what MIT's mission is. If he or she can actually quote the mission statement, it should go in; if not, not. (On looking at the mission statement, my reaction is 'yeccch.' I don't see what it says that "a university polarized around science" doesn't say). Dpbsmith (talk) 01:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks nice! crl620 07:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Works for me. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The inclusion of inertial navigation in the opening paragraph concerns me as it seems to lead us down the road to limnology again. I don't doubt that MIT played a crucial role in inertial navigation, but I do doubt that inertial navigation has had the same influence on society-at-large as the computer or biomedical research. We need to reach a consensus on what MIT's greatest achievements and contributions have been. Madcoverboy 22:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Mea culpa. It had previously said "spaceflight technology." But, when I think of "spaceflight technology" in general, I'm not sure MIT comes immediately to mind; Caltech's Jet Propulsion Laboratory; the commercial aviation companies like Lockheed, Boeing, and Douglas; the military; the civilian government (NACA, later NASA) was important. Does The Right Stuff even mention MIT? (Not according to an Amazon "Search inside this book" trying MIT, and "Massachusetts Institute of Technology" in quotes as the search strings. Nope... only four occurrences of the word "Technology").


 * I thought it was better to say inertial navigation, because it was a key technology for missiles and spaceflight that is closely associated with the MIT Instrumentation Laboratory (later Charles Stark Draper Laboratory) played an extremely important role during the 1940s and 1950s. (The Apollo Guidance Computer was also developed there, and fits as an MIT contribution to spaceflight technology and to electronic digital computers).


 * What I'm saying is, if you ask "what institutions were key players in the development of spaceflight technology" you'd have a long list with MIT in it somewhere. (And Goddard at Clark...) But if you ask "what institutions were key players in the development of inertial navigation" MIT would probably be the first on the list. Perhaps it needs an explanation, if people don't know why inertial navigation is important. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hacks
Anyone think there is call for a well-researched and cited article about hacks at MIT? Aguerriero ( ţ ) ( ć ) ( ë ) 02:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, for two main reasons and a third. First, it is engrained in the culture of MIT and provides a release valve for intelligent students.  Second, it is part of the lore and pop culture associated with the school.  Thirdly, it demonstrates the rivarly with other schools such as CalTech and others. A good place to start is http://hacks.mit.edu/ --Assawyer 03:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am working on writing one, although it may take a few days. Thanks for the reference; it will definitely be useful.  If anyone has any public domain photos or personal photos of hacks they wouldn't mind uploading, that would be great to use in the article.  Aguerriero  ( ţ ) ( ć ) ( ë ) 04:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You may want to look at MIT hack as well. Nationalparks 04:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I view with alarm the Boston Globe article, Comedy on campus: MIT takes on Caltech for prank distinction, about how the prank "delighted a high-ranking Caltech administrator" and "The grand old days of pranking have gone away at Caltech, and that's what we are trying to bring back," said Tom Mannion, the assistant vice president for campus life at Caltech. One of Mannion's main initiatives on the Pasadena campus is to revive the pranking culture. In fact, security has orders not to intervene in a prank unless officers get Mannion's approval beforehand." Maybe a good hack shouldn't be destructive, but it shouldn't elicit avuncular approval from the authorities.


 * On the other hand... was I the only person infantile enough to be amused by the wording in the second paragraph of the Globe's earlier story, namely "MIT pulled off a big one today?" Dpbsmith (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

MIT Ranking "facts"
I removed

http://www.mit.edu/~menchu/facts/html/factsmain.html

because:

1) it appears to be the personal website of Miguel Menchu, and as such wouldn't meet the reliable source guidelines, but, more seriously,

2) although it does cite a few of its sources, it appears to be about as neutral as Wal*Mart "facts" and seems to have cherry-picked its facts, citing only ones highly favorable to MIT. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ech. It's like one big neutrality violation. . . and it's not nearly as interesting as "Is Suicide at MIT a Poisson Process?".  Anville 18:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Tied with Duke in Academic Reputation?
Can someone verify that MIT and Duke were in fact tied under "academic reputation" in U.S. News and World Report as the article states? I find that to be bizarre, because the last issue available online from only a few years back has MIT at 4.9 (90% ranking it a perfect 5) and Duke at 4.5 (50%). That's a big difference, so I can't see it as being probable that Duke rose to the 4.8-4.9 range in so short a period. Perhaps an eager editor mistook "academic reputation" for the overall rankings? Wise 20:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and removed it. Unless a source can be cited, it should remain that way.   My doubt borders on the 99% certainty level. Certainly someone mistook the overall ranking for the "academic reputation" score. Wise 20:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I agree. I can't find a single ranking showing Duke up there. -crl620 21:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Wording tweaks in the "ranking and reputation" section
I changed:
 * Nevertheless, in some US circles, undergraduate attendance at MIT has not carried the same type of social cachet as attendance at Harvard, Yale or Princeton.[10] This has been attributed to its longstanding traditions of meritocratic admissions, stringent grading standards, and comparatively low emphasis on admitting children of alumni and students from the upper class.[11]

to


 * Nevertheless, in the U.S., undergraduate attendance at MIT has not carried the same type of social cachet as attendance at Harvard, Yale or Princeton.[1] MIT's tradition of meritocratic admissions[2] differs from that of the former schools.

The qualification "in the U.S." is meaningful, so I left it in.

The qualification "in some circles" is meaningless and redundant; social cachet is only important in those circles in which social cachet is important, just as high intelligence is only important in some circles, muscular strength is only important in some circles, etc.

In the sentence about meritocratic admissions: the cited source says only that MIT has meritocratic admissions; it doesn't say that's the reason why attendance at HYP confers more social cachet. So the sentence needed to be rewritten to make that clear. The weasel-worded "has been attributed" doesn't belong unless someone can identify who, exactly, has attributed that effect to that cause, so I just took it out.

"Comparatively low emphasis on admitting children of alumni and students from the upperclass" is redundant; that's what "meritocratic" means.

The fact that it is MIT that says it has a meritocratic tradition is an important qualification and needs to be left in. There's a difference between "an MIT dean says thus-and-such" and "thus-and-such is true."

My rewriting leaves two highly supportable statements: a) an MIT dean says MIT has a tradition of meritocratic admissions; b) this policy differs from the admissions policy of HYP.

We leave it to the reader to draw the obvious inference (attendence at some schools carries social cachet because at those schools part of the admissions committee's function is to make social judgements on the applicant)... or to wonder what the point of the sentence about meritocratic admissions is. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

"Reputation" section
BrassRat has removed this
 * Nevertheless, in the U.S., undergraduate attendance at MIT has not carried the same type of social cachet as attendance at Harvard, Yale or Princeton. MIT's tradition of meritocratic admissions differs from that of the former schools.

with the edit comment "NPOV." I believe it is objective, neutral, and well-sourced. I'm citing a sociologist&mdash;the sociologist who coined the acronym WASP, in fact&mdash;and the MIT Dean of Admissions.
 * The statement as phrased makes a sweeping generalization based on a few individual quotes and opinions. That's hardly objective. When you consider that Stanford is now routinely considered ahead of Princeton and Yale in terms of desirability (see: about how Stanford/Yale admits tend to choose Stanford), all of these statements about H-P-Y sort of break down. The college landscape might have looked the way you describe in the 1960's and 70's, but it's obviously changed completely since then. BrassRat 23:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

MIT's admission policies differ from those of Harvard, Yale and Princeton.

In fact, I don't even see which way the bias is supposed to be leaning here. We talk vaguely about "selectivity." Well, MIT "selects" in a different way from Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. I happen to think it is a better way. However, those who believe colleges should select students partially on the basis of social standing will of course see it as a negative factor. The statement is objective. Any bias is in the eye of the beholder.

Either way, if we are going to say things about how selective MIT is, we should say something about how MIT selects people.


 * You're making normative inferences from flatly positive information. The statement in the article is not that "MIT is the most selective college", it is that MIT ranked #1 in Atlantic Monthly's selectivity ranking.  There is a big difference between those statements.  If you have other surveys which indicate MIT is not as selective (e.g. US News ranks it #2, maybe someone else ranks it lower) then you can list those as well. BrassRat 23:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The correlate of being meritocratic is that being selected by MIT does not carry social cachet. Nothing biased about that. Just the logical consequence. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * While this idea is interesting, it is obviously controversial and not POV. In some circles MIT has more prestige than H-P-Y (say, among engineers and scientists) whereas in others it might have less.  Prestige or "cachet", whatever you choose to call it, is a relative measure which even a specific survey of prestige does not prove.  If you have such a survey, you're welcome to cite it of course, but the broad statement that "MIT has not carried the same type of social cachet" is POV, as well as wrong. It's the difference between citing US News rankings of "best" and then creating a statement that says "Princeton is the best university in the United States". We can cite statistics and surveys, but we should avoid POV inferences thereof. BrassRat 23:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A good quote:
 * "In the early 1900s you would have said Oxford and Cambridge were the best universities in the world, 50 years later you could have said Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, MIT, today its Harvard and MIT, nobody mentions Oxford or Cambridge." 
 * - Interview with Prof. M. Vidyasagar, an Executive VP with Tata Consulting Services in India. - BrassRat 01:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You seem to be missing the distinction between academic excellence and social prestige. I've made my points above. Perhaps I need to be clearer about social prestige: I mean social prestige among the upper-class Protestant "establishment," which still is of considerable importance in the United States. However, I won't revert since nobody but the two of us seems to be weighing in on this question. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand your point, what I'm saying is that these days, the two are almost indistinguishable, and it's probably social prestige that corresponds most closely to the general population's idea of which universities are "best". Thus, if people believe that MIT is "better" than Yale (as most groups and surveys cited appear to think), then that is the very definition of having greater social prestige.  Does that mean that more sons of wealthy WASP families attend there?  No.  Because of meritocratic admissions, as well as a focus on science and technology, many likely could not get in or did not apply.  But social cachet does not come from having a large number of dumb or liberal arts-focused (or both) WASP legacies.  It does come, to some extent, from which universities those same WASP families would tell their kids to go to if they were smart and could get in anywhere. In the past, that may have been H-P-Y.  But these days, it seems to be Harvard/Stanford/Princeton/Yale for arts and MIT/Stanford/Harvard for sciences. And so, for those WASP sons and daughters who are interested in science and technology, and are good enough to get in, MIT is definitely at the top of their lists, and carries immense social cachet the world over (as is evident from the above quote). And it also bears out why it seems perfectly sensible to the Times to list Harvard, MIT and Stanford as the best universities in the US. BrassRat 01:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * And lest I forget, all of these ideas are just our arguments based on the opinions of people we can find and quote. Neither are objective facts which allow us to have an encyclopedic "fact" one way or the other on this topic, on whether MIT carries more or less social cachet than other institutions.  BrassRat 02:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with BrassRat's last point. There are a lot of good and bad things you might claim about how MIT graduates are viewed by prospective employers, etc., but it's all fundamentally hearsay. And I think any discussion about qualitative admissions standards at MIT or elsewhere is basically speculation; these procedures are enigmatic and probably, at the end of the day, substantially arbitrary.


 * 1) The issue is not whether MIT is "good" or "bad," or whether a Tau Beta Pi member is just as good as a Porcellian member. The issue is whether to have meaningful things that say how MIT is different from other schools, or whether articles on universities should be puff pieces that all say the same things and read like admissions-office brochures.


 * 2) We have all kinds of "hearsay" in Wikipedia; it is known as "cited sources." Our policy is verifiability, not truth. We can't put our own speculation or opinions in an article, but we can and should put meaningful, well-cited opinions from reliable sources.


 * 3) A Brass Rat opens doors, but they are different doors from those opened by attendance at Harvard, Yale, or Princeton. Take a look at the CVs of people who have managed to become President (or presidential candidates) lately. I'll believe this has all changed and that the United States has become a truly democratic society when I read that Porcellian has sold its building and closed its doors due to lack of interest. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This reasoning is wrong on many levels. But at the most basic, when you only have the backgrounds of 20 people to work with in the last century, that sample space is ridiculously small. Let's also agree that correlation and causality are not the same thing, and that George W. Bush is POTUS not because he want to Harvard and Yale but because he is related to his dad, and likely got into Yale as a legacy anyway. Also, as I noted above, he was a liberal arts student, and liberal arts students tend not to be attracted to MIT. Government folks also tend to be liberal arts guys, leading to liberal arts schools doing better than technical schools when it comes to producing world leaders, particularly US leaders (where proficiency in math and science is not required of our leaders!)  But there are exceptions in the political realm, like Benjamin Netanyahu (Prime Minister of Israel, MIT undergraduate and Sloan graduate) and Kofi Annan (UN Secretary General and Sloan graduate).


 * I'm saying there's a lack of symmetry here. Of course there are circles in which an MIT degree is prized. I expect there are circles where an Emory degree is prized more highly than Harvard or MIT. The difference is that the circles in which Harvard, Yale, and Princeton degrees are prized happen to be connected into the U.S. power structure. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * But the existence or lack of existence of such high level examples does not really say anything about the quality of a school as a whole. Look through List of U.S. Presidents by college education and you'll see that University of Cincinnati College of Law has the same number of US Presidents as Harvard Law School, and that the College of William and Mary has produced as many US Presidents as Yale or Princeton, or as many as Stanford, Amherst, and Georgetown combined.


 * Who's talking about "the quality of a school as whole?" I was talking about selectivity, who gets selected, and what schools are connected with social status. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want to take exception to something, take exception to the fact that the political system favors dullard legacies such as Bush and that Harvard, Yale, and Princeton give preferential access to such folks when they'd never be able to get into places like MIT, and then let them pass with a "Gentleman's C". Of course, with the Internet, the cat is now out of the bag and those schools are widely criticized for such policies, which hurts their perception and "cachet". BrassRat 18:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As it happens, I don't approve of Harvard, Yale, and Princeton's admissions policies. But that's my point of view. And yours. And it's not surprising. MIT indeed has a more or less meritocratic admissions policy. So, of course, the people the MIT admissions committee selects tend to approve of meritocracy and disapprove of privilege. Thus I think it's hardly surprising that "The school has a powerful anti-authoritarian ethos in which it is believed that one's social status should be determined by raw intellectual prowess rather than by social class or organizational position." Hey, those are the kind of people the MIT admissions committee chooses. My guess is that Harvard, Yale, and Princeton students do approve of those schools' admissions policy. And there is good reason to believe that Mel Elfin, founder of the U. S. News ratings, does too. U. S. News makes sure that it uses an evaluation system that gives HYP high rankings because people value what it is that HYP have. They probably shouldn't, but in fact they do. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's agree that It's wrong, in some kind of moral sense, that Harvard, Yale and Princeton degrees carry more social cachet than MIT degrees. That doesn't make the statement untrue. That doesn't mean it's not something that can be established reasonably objectively and neutrally. And it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be in the article. Just because it's morally "wrong" doesn't make it factually "wrong." Dpbsmith (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not a question of right or wrong, it's a question of true or false. I believe that "social cachet" is the same thing as what the eyes of the general population see as "best", and as such, Harvard and MIT appear to carry the most social cachet (or prestige, or whatever you want to call it), more than than Yale, Princeton, or others. BrassRat 21:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Dpbsmith, I've enjoyed this debate, as I think you have some very well informed, interesting arguments. I have a proposal for you on this topic: define what you mean by "social cachet". Then we can determine if we mean the same thing or not. BrassRat 21:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * For similar reasons I think the following two paragraphs are gross idealizations that we should consider excising:


 * The school has a powerful anti-authoritarian ethos in which it is believed that one's social status should be determined by raw intellectual prowess rather than by social class or organizational position. Other beliefs that are strongly held by people within the school are that information should be widely disseminated and not held secret, and that truth is a matter of empirical reality rather than the result of popular belief or management directive.


 * The lack of machine grading and multiple-choice stems from the belief that understanding the concept is almost as important as getting the right answer. For example, students are seldom strongly penalized for making arithmetic mistakes, and partial credit tends to be generous. Tests often consist of a small number of large problems which are subdivided into smaller steps. Test problems are intentionally extremely difficult and clever, and are designed so that few students can obtain a perfect score. On the other hand, the assignment of grades reflects the difficulty, and most classes end with a grade distribution centered around a B.


 * --Mike Lin 06:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * They should not be excised immediately. They should be marked as needing sources and hopefully replaced by well-sourced statements.. If they can't be referenced, then eventually they should be removed. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed an earlier discussion, but I think this whole section should be gutted down to a paragraph or a few sentances with citations to all these rankings or otherwise combined with a section named something to the effect of "Perceptions of MIT." Despite all the talk about being a meritocracy, we seem wholly obsessed with rankings compared to the pages at other schools. Harvard, Princeton, Yale etc only mention the rankings in passing while we devote a whole section at the beginning of the article to it. It seems petty to me. Madcoverboy 19:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * More accolades to cite for the rankings-gluttons. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0609.national.html Madcoverboy 14:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh no, please, not Washington Monthly, not again. They are a subversive attempt to change how people value colleges... and I applaud their effort, but I don't think for a microsecond tensed-up parents and ambitious guidance counselors pay any attention to it at all. Last time we looked at this MIT's position had changed drastically between two successive years... IIRC it was #1 one year after having been #20 or so the previous year... and nobody could say what, exactly had changed at MIT that could account for such a change in its rank. At least U. S. News' methodology has a stable, consistent bias. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)



Dodgy metric

 * In US News and World Report's 2007 survey of graduate programs, MIT is ranked #1 in more graduate programs than any other university in the US, with the top programs in Chemistry, Computer Science, Economics, Engineering, Mathematics, and Physics.

Counting the number of graduate programs in which a university ranks first in US News and World Reports is not a standard way to measure universities; I don't think any other article mentions this.

It's also not a metric of any use to anyone (or to vanishingly few people), because a graduate student already knows which program he or she is enrolling in, and is only interested in the reputation of that particular program. If you want to enter a graduate program in mathematics, the fact that MIT is ranked number 1 in chemistry is not of any importance. And if you want to do graduate work in medicine or law, MIT is not a prudent choice no matter how many of its programs are ranked #1.

This seems to me like an invented metric, invented simply to "prove" that MIT is "best." Dpbsmith (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Although I happen to agree with you on US News and World Reports, it's not our job to judge this in a Wikipedia article. The mere fact that they're a notable source and that they have ranked MIT this way should be sufficient criteria to place this in the article.  At the very least, it provides a source for why MIT might be considered a top school.  Readers can judge for themselves whether they agree with the assessment or not.  &mdash;Umofomia 17:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * But U. S. New and World Reports didn't count the number of graduate programs in which MIT was best. They ranked MIT in individual graduate programs. It's counting them up, thereby synthesizing a brand new ranking criterion, that I have an issue with.


 * I don't have any problem with citing, say, the U. S. News overall ranking in "national top schools," since for better or worse this is a metric that everybody uses.


 * What I have a problem with is cherrypicking particular rankings, and synthesizing new metrics. All of the following statements are true, but I don't think any of them belong in the article:


 * MIT is the top-ranked Morrill Act school in the nation
 * MIT ranks higher than any other school with more than 32 letters in its name
 * Of all universities that have no law school and no Crafoord laureates, MIT is the highest-ranked.
 * Dpbsmith (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If this were merely about chemistry grad schools, your point would be valid, but it's hard not to believe that the sum of the quality of its individual graduate schools is not relevant to the quality of a university as a whole, which is the topic of the article. That's hardly in the same class as "schools with 32 letters in the name". Gzuckier 19:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that "quality of a university as a whole" is a meaningful concept. Does U. S. News and World Report have such a ranking? If it does, it would be reasonable to quote it. If not, then we should shouldn't rush in where U. S. News fears to tread. The big problem with the concept of the "quality of a university as a whole" is that nobody attends a university as a whole. And, you get into the issue of how to compare a school which lacks a business school (say, Brown) with one that has an excellent but not-quite-stellar business school (say, Yale). Counting the number of excellent departments seems particularly arbitrary. Let's say that MIT's not having a medical school shouldn't count against it in assessing the overall quality. I'm not sure why not, but let's grant that. Very well. But MIT does have a number of humanities programs, which are very good by most standards but not in the same league as, well, the Ivy League. How should that be factored in?
 * I haven't checked, but I'll bet that no other university article happens to mention the "number of graduate programs in which X was best." It's an arbitrary metric, created specifically for measuring MIT. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, I didn't realize that the count was not cited from U.S. News, in which case I agree with you. However, it should be still fine to state which programs were deemed #1, making the statement effectively:
 * In US News and World Report's 2007 survey of graduate programs, MIT is ranked #1 in Chemistry, Computer Science, Economics, Engineering, Mathematics, and Physics.
 * Agreed? &mdash;Umofomia 22:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with that. I'd prefer if it were simply phrased as saying that these are notably strong programs, citing U. S. News as a reference, but I have no problem with it. It's the business of saying it is "ranked #1 in more graduate programs than any other university in the US" that I find unacceptable. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Suicide
The article certainly should not suggest that an exceptionally high suicide rate is a characteristic, distinguishing feature of MIT. It is not, and so mention of suicide does not belong in the lead paragraph. A student jumped out of a high-rise at UMass Amherst at about the same time MIT suicides were local headlines; the Gorge is proverbial at Cornell (Another Fatal Plunge Has Cornell Asking Whether Its Gorges Inspire Student Suicides)

On the other hand, the issue should not be whitewashed by failing to mention it at all. Like many elite colleges, MIT does have many suicides, even if this is not an area in which boosters can claim yet another #1 ranking, and the Elizabeth Shin incident drew national attention to the issue.

The paragraph I wrote is probably too long; if anyone can figure out how to shorten it while citing sources and maintaining neutrality, they should do so. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What percentage of the student body was male throughout the 90's until the present day? Besselfunctions


 * Good question... this article says 57% male currently. This not-such-a-reliable source says 3:1 circa 1992. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC) The article says "In the past few years, the ratio of women to men among undergraduate students has approached 1:1." There's no citation though, and I'm inclined to doubt it. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The admissions office has made a lot of hay] about having reached sexual near-parity in each class it has admitted since at least 2003 (class of 2007).  |MIT Facts says that 43% of undergraduates (29% of graduate students) were women in Fall 2005. Madcoverboy 17:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "43% female" is a good match for the "57% male" in the Post-Gazette, and certainly the admissions office is a good source. I'm going to tweak the article a bit as I don't think I'd consider 43:57 or 44:56 to be "1:1" or "near parity," even if it wouldn't be enough to stop a Senate filibuster. Better to give the percentage and let the reader judge. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Building 20
How is there no article for this? Was it merged into the MIT Radiation Laboratory article? Madcoverboy 04:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Whoa! Good question. What happened to the material that used to be there? Dpbsmith (talk) 12:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I reverted, then re-trimmed that section. I originally selected some of the quotations used there, and I was trying convey, simultaneously, by source citations, a) the gushy admiration the Stata has evoked, both the admiration and the gushiness (mentioning it in the same sentence as St. Paul's Cathedral? Suuurrrrre, and Building 10 can be compared to the dome of the Hagia Sofia) b) at least a suggestion that it cost too much and is more admired by architecture writers than by others.


 * I'd rather have a bit too much on both Stata and Building 20 than too little on either.


 * I suspect I'm not the only alum who regarded Building 20 as the true embodiment of the MIT spirit and views its replacement with "hot architecture" with great alarm. Of course, no doubt others felt exactly the same way about the Maclaurin buildings, Kresge, the Eero Saarinen chapel, Baker House, the Green Building, etc. Maybe Stata will be OK when it's had time to get a little grungy. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There was never an article on Building 20. Someone linked it either with or without the intention of writing one. Frankly, I don't think there needs to be an article about a) a single MIT building which b) no longer exists. Let alone the disambiguation issue (thank goodness it wasn't numbered Building 19). Dpbsmith (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I had originally linked to Building 20 with the intent to put in a stub to revise later, but it had gotten too late. I agree that Building 20 perhaps doesn't warrant its own page, but I think that there should be a significant section devoted to Building 20 in Stata Center with a redirect from Building 20 to the Stata article.


 * Works for me. I hadn't noticed the article on Stata Center. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't share your enthusiasm for Stata on its own.


 * Me? Enthusiasm? I think it's bizarre, and patently an architect's self-indulgent display of his own ego. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * In the old days, we didn't need to build buildings like that because we could take drugs. Gzuckier 16:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that there was a prominent and very positive NYTimes article written about Simmons as well that would likewise deserve a berth. Perhaps more could be said of the lack of MIT architectural homogeneity or continuity? Or at least describe the different eras, Romanesque Maclaurin buildings from early 20th century, post-war IM Pei Sarrinen experiments, bomb shelter concrete cubes from the 60s and 70s (W20, E53, 26, 56), reaction in the 90s with E51, Simmons, et al. Madcoverboy 14:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine. Those "bomb shelter concrete cubes" were, I think, an extremely annoying trend of the times called Brutalism. Architectural writers seem to think that giving something a name validates it. Nobody I know liked those raw concrete things except the architecture writers. At the time I suspected they were built that way to be cheap, but no. It costs money to pour concrete with such skill that the grain of the plywood forms can be seen inthe concrete. Why anyone would want the look of a) plywood or b) raw concrete or c) visible plywood grain in raw concrete has never been explained to me.


 * When the MIT Student Center, now the Stratton Student Center (I feel sorry for Big Julie, he didn't deserve that) was built, it was said that architect deliberately had arranged for one of the narrow slots (intended for shooting arrows at besieging enemies?) to be built upside down, because "only God could make a perfect building," and he put in a deliberate error to avoid the sin of hubris. It was generally felt that he needn't have bothered. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I spent a couple weeks trampling around Boston, just a little while ago (I went for an academic conference and managed to stay through Independence Day). It struck me how quickly one could start at the Stata Center, that monstrosity of poststructuralist architecture, and walk down Vassar Street to buildings that look like places where they build air conditioners.  Anville 14:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, dear, what's the building not too far from MIT that actually has, or used to have, a huge leather transmission belt and a couple of pulleys on the outside of the building, displayed as part of their signage, because they made or once made transmission belts there? A beautiful combination of the Massachusetts leather-and-shoe tradition and the Massachusetts industrial tradition. If the belt was in fact leather.


 * I've probably mentioned this before, but circa 1990 a venture capitalist told me that one of the reasons Massachusetts was such a good place for a startup was the availability of dozens of small independent machine shops. I think there's a tendency to overvalue the purely cerebral aspects of Massachusetts and undervalue the blue-collar, "Connecticut-Yankee-like" aspects... Dpbsmith (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC) Dpbsmith (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Controversies
No mention of Ted Postol and allegations of research misconduct at Lincoln Labs. Reading the good article discussion page reminded me about this controversy. Madcoverboy 15:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I also would add these cases to some of the contentious/controversial aspects of MIT. Alleged David Baltimore research misconduct; David F. Noble tenure case in the 1980s and freedom-of-speech in academia; MIT involvement in classified/defense research + student protests & sit-ins in 1970s = decision to spin off Draper move classified research off campus. I definitely think we could make some sort of subheading under the random agglomoration that is the history section. Madcoverboy 19:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous Technicality
The article claims that 5.111 is referred to as "five eleven one" and never as "five one eleven." In fact, at least during my years as an undergrad at MIT in the early 80s, we referred to such courses as "five one eleven." I wonder if this is, perhaps, specific to Course or to a given cohort. Drgitlow 00:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good example of original research to me... if this fact can't be traced to a published source, it should be removed. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I heard the young folk saying "five one eleven" when I visited my old living group two weeks ago. Let's zap it.  Anville 14:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "Five eleven one" and "five eleven two" (the advanced version) seem more symmetric than "five one eleven" and "five one twelve". The former pair was definitely the most common pronunciation during my time at MIT. --Mike Lin 20:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, Professor Ceyer told my 5.111 class last year that the courses were pronounced "five eleven one" and "five eleven two" and NEVER "five one eleven" and "five one twelve". I've been at MIT for a year and a half and have never once heard "five one eleven". int3gr4te 20:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm also a current student, only ever heard it as "five eleven one" 141.232.1.1 18:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

#1 for engineering since U. S. News began ranking
I'm snipping
 * MIT has also been ranked as the #1 graduate school for engineering since U.S. News began ranking programs.

until someone can find a citation; it's been without a citation since June 18th. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Found a cite, albeit from MIT news office. Putting it back in. Madcoverboy 03:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Good. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Land Grant Status
The article says nothing at all about MIT's status as a Land-grant university. As one of only two private land-grant institutions, MIT's land-grant status should at least be discussed in the history section.

MIT-Harvard Merger
A MIT archives page [] says the the Harvard-MIT merger was rejected by the Massachusetts Supreme Court in 1905 rather than 1917 as it says in the article. Was the latter a different merger attempt? I'll be back on campus next week so perhaps I'll make a trek to archives and find out more. Madcoverboy 20:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC) "A majority of trustees from both institutions approved the scheme, but it was financially contingent upon MIT’s ability to sell its property in Boston’s Back Bay to raise funds for rebuilding on Harvard’s land at Soldiers Field. In September 1905 the intended merger failed because the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court determined that MIT could not sell its Back Bay lands without violating the terms under which it had originally acquired them."
 * Nevermind, I RTFA. Madcoverboy 20:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources for endowment, enrollment, etc.
A non-logged-in user recently made some small unexplained changes in the enrollment numbers. There has also, for some reason, been a certain amount of slow-motion edit-warring on endowment figures for some universities.

This underlines the importance of having sources for information of this kind.

Absent sources neither I nor anyone else has any way of easily checking to see whether these changes are valuable updates, or whether they simply represent a different (and slightly inconsistent) source... or whether they are subtle vandalism. I don't have time to look for sources right now so I'm marking them as needing citations. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

#1 in academic reputation?
I have cut out the part about MIT always being ranked #1 in academic reputation, as it's simply false. This article from MIT's own website says it was ranked third at least one year. LaszloWalrus 20:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The line is somewhat buried in the article, so I'll quote so that others don't have to wade through: "MIT did better in other categories, ranking third in academic reputation and fourth in both student selectivity and freshmen in the top ten percent of their high school class." LaszloWalrus 20:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pinning this down. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

"Institute Professor" nominated for deletion
The article titled Institute Professor has been nominated for deletion by user:Kane5187, who says not all of the 10-or-12-or-so Institute Professors are notable. This while many MIT professors who are not Institute Professors have Wikipedia articles and are universally considered notable (and so do most of the Institute Professors). Please opine at Articles for deletion/Institute Professor. Your input is needed! Michael Hardy 00:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Class Ring
In the article about MIT Hacks, it is written "A common motif in the MIT Brass Rat is the inclusion of the letters IHTFP hidden somewhere in the bezel." Shouldn't this be mentioned in the section about the class ring? (The "IHTFP" is actually visible in the included picture)

NRC Ranking
Maybe it's just me, but I think the 1995 NRC report citation is getting a little long in the tooth. While it's ostensibly more objective than the news magazines, it's nevertheless almost 12 years old now. I motion to strike it from the section unless someone can (1) demonstrate what it adds to the bloated Rankings section or (2) update it with a new reference. Madcoverboy 13:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It is old, but it's particularly significant because it's by the National Research Council, as opposed to, say, a profit-making entity hoping to sell magazines (U. S. News) or books (Princeton Review)... or trying to push a point of view (Washington Monthly).


 * How very odd... I see that sometime since I put that item in, strangely enough the "#1" ranking (in reputation) is still there, yet the "#4" ranking (citations and faculty awards) was removed. I wonder what selection principle was exercised, other than removing the lower-ranking statistic?


 * I'd suggest removing the Washington Monthly ranking, because it's not a "real" ranking (in the sense that guidance counselors or ambitious parents pay much attention to it), and it is published specifically to promote a point of view. It happens to be a point of view that I agree with, but nevertheless that's what it is. Furthermore, their methodology isn't very clear and the rankings fluctuate wildly from year to year, making them questonable. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * We could probably get into a spitting match over the objectivity of any government endeavor, but the fact that one study was conducted and never followed up on suggests that there was the study fulfilled its purpose to some lobbyist/contributor. Less politically, I question the relevance of the citation as a reliable metric to measure MIT's current reputation. The statistic implies a time "back when MIT was great" in the midst of other citations a decade later. Presumably quantifying "reputation" would depend upon a combination of faculty productivity, admitted student enrollments, and post-graduate success. Faculty turnover alone in the past 12 years would likely alter this distribution to say nothing of the dramatically altered ethnic and sexual makeup of the student body and faculty in the last 10 years. More anecdotally, the current department head for MIT's Program in STS received his PhD from the same program in 1995. Madcoverboy 15:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually one of the interesting things in that report is that it pins down, if pinning down were needed, that MIT is still a "university polarized around science." It does not appear at all in the top 20 lists for Arts and Humanities or Social and Behavioral Sciences. This should not surprise anyone any more than Harvard's poor showing in Electrical Engineering, but it does underline the nonsense of an overall rank. Someone with a strong interest in the humanities would probably do better at a "public ivy" state university than at MIT.


 * I don't have terribly strong feelings about that particular ranking. If you're ready to thin out the ranking section go ahead... just don't selectively delete lower rankings. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * P. S. "The Washington Monthly ranked MIT #1 in the nation in its inaugural college rankings in 2005, and again in 2006." WTF? People seem to have conveniently forgotten their 2002 rankings in which MIT did poorly. Somehow "MIT leaped from near the bottom of the pack three years ago to near the top today in its "national service" ranking, which weighs heavily in their overall ranking, even though neither they nor anyone on the talk page could point to anything obvious that had changed.


 * If you're thinning out this section, I think the "Washington Monthly" ranking should go. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Ranking Chart
Very impressive use of table, but very biased and unneccessary. How many MIT programs aren't ranked in the top 3 nationally that you eschewed? I moved the chart to MIT rankings and reputation. All you other academic boosters can have it out there about which rankings to selectively use. Madcoverboy 16:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Also likely copyright infringement with all the US News data chart. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm sure they've sued people for less than wholesale copying of their rankings. Madcoverboy 16:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I added a " </nowiki<" tag to reflect the fact that this is Nobel season and we still have prizes in physics, chemistry, and economics left yet. Yeah, peace and literature too I suppose... :) I just remember the announcements come in a fairly rapid succession, but I could be wrong. Remove the tag if you think its inappropriate. I also added a bunch of other awards that MIT faculty have won that I think are better indicators of reputation than bickering over whose ranking is best. Madcoverboy 08:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

History
I just spent a good 6 hours redoing the History section based largely on the information available in the Lewis Report. Leave your comments, suggestions, etc. This was something I felt needed to get done so that we can get back to Featured Article! I might go back and clean up some other sections when it's not 4:30am. Madcoverboy 08:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding the hacking section; I believe it could be expanded to include some of the other more famous hacks, if only in passing. Pictures definitely. Additionally, I would also like to move the section on the Dating Guide to another page, perhaps a History of MIT about the various strains of antiauthoritarianism and civil disobedience throughout. It stands out as being neither the most important nor the most compelling example. Madcoverboy 04:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This article on MIT is getting too long. See the WP:article on Article Size.  It be better to have a separate article on "Hacking at MIT", perhaps also wiki-linked from a "College Pranks" article.  - Lentower 13:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The sections on Bibles, Classes could be condensed into a sentance with no real loss of meaning (ie, MIT is not unique with teaching split between professor-led lectures and TA-led recitations; GPA information is trivial). Campus and History could similarly be pared down with much of the existing content moved to articles "xyz at MIT." Madcoverboy 21:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I made some cuts in the areas above, hopefully with no major loss or shift of meaning. I would also note that other university FA are similarly large: MSU is 54kb, Duke 63kb, etc. There's a lot to talk about ;) Madcoverboy 03:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thinking more about the size of the article; I copied the body of the article (no cites, no footer boxes, no picture captions, etc) into OOo and it came to approx 5800 words, south of the Wikipedia:Article Size's recommendation of "tiring after 6,000 to 10,000 words." I wonder if we could do some sort of sensitivity analysis to see if all our cites are gobbling up space (a good thing!) or if its something else... Madcoverboy 03:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Removing all the text between "ref" links and associated formatting code (ie Course table), brings the article size down to 50kb. So while the article stands at approx 70kb now, readers don't see about 20kb of it. There is certainly more to be edited or removed though. Madcoverboy 15:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article?
So I've given my rash of editing a good week to sit and ruminate and there have been no complaints. What more needs to get done to get to FA? Or to improve this page as a portal to the rest of the MIT content? Madcoverboy 05:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It needs more work first. I just skimmed it and found several errors by fact and omission, and lot's else to do.  I'm currently working on FA status for Richard Stallman, and have a vacation planned the 2nd half of Oct -- so it will be a while until I can help out here.  (Not that you have to wait for my editing and input. ;-)  You might note the list in that article's To Do box on Talk:Richard_Stallman.  BTW, I'm MIT Class of 1971, and have lived within a few miles of campus and been a regular member of the MIT Community since then. - Lentower 21:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have the impression that the article has drifted a bit in the glossy-brochure direction.


 * I see a number of jarring things.


 * To take one at random: "Unlike most other institutions of higher education, MIT enrolls more graduate students, (approximately 6,000 annually) than undergraduates (approximately 4,000)." That's so vague as to be vacuously true, but surely that's not all that unique. Let me check. I'm guessing this is also true of Johns Hopkins, the University of Chicago, and Rockefeller University. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Johns Hopkins, nope, I was wrong. The University of Chicago, most definitely--twice as many grad students, a higher grad:undergrad ratio than MIT. Rockefeller University has no undergraduates at all, an infinite grad:undergrad ratio.


 * Hey! Columbia has over twice as many grads as undergrads. Hey, hey: Harvard has almost twice as many. Yale 5316 undergrads, 6074 grads and University of Pennsylvania have more grads than undergrads.


 * I bet the truth is closer to "Like most major research universities, MIT enrolls more grads than undergrads."


 * That's just one point, but I have the feeling that it's not the only breezy shoot-from-the-hip un-fact-checked and not-quite-right thing in the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This boosterism is what got this MIT article shot down for Featured Article, last time. - Lentower 13:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we set a deadline when we would like to request a peer-review? Perhaps December 1? Regarding the 2005 FA attempt, many issues have been addressed:
 * 1) Other universities have since been featured as FAs. ("I think that it is probably not a good idea to feature an article about any college, as it will undoubtedly be construed as support for the institution and not merely for the article.")
 * 2) we now have a whole section on controversies ("The current article does not contain the word "suicide" and is generally light on anything that might be construed as negative or critical.").
 * 3) No one has raised any copyvio flags ("A number of the images are possible copyvios")
 * 4) An extensive list of cited sources ("many opinions are quoted without any source", "Many unclearly attributed phrases", "general non specificity"). If a statement should be cited, throw a tag on there quickly and we will try to reference it.
 * 5) Rankings could still be improved, but more NPOV than before ("Also consistently ranks among the highest in nationwide reports")

Certainly the length of the article (~70kb including ~20kb of source cites) is cause for pause, but as I said before, other university FAs are just as large. Madcoverboy 15:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed information about Campus
Lavoisier, for example, is placed in the company of Boyle, Cavendish, Priestley, Dalton, Gay Lussac, Berzelius, Woehler, Liebig, Bunsen, Mendelejeff [sic], Perkin, and van't Hoff.

The organization of building numbers on campus may appear random, but there is some order to it and it is believed to roughly correspond to the order in which the buildings were built. Buildings 1-10 were the original main campus, with building 10, the location of the Great Dome, designed to be the main entrance. Buildings 1-8 are arranged symmetrically around building 10, with odd-numbered buildings to the west and even-numbered buildings to the east.

The east side of campus has "the 6s", several connecting buildings that end with the digit 6 (buildings 6, 16, 26, 36, 56 and 66, with building 46 across the street from 36). The 30s buildings run along Vassar street on the north side of main campus. Buildings that are East of Ames Street are prefixed with an E (e.g. E52, the Sloan Bulding); those West of Massachusetts Avenue generally start with a W (e.g., W20, the Stratton Student Center).

Bosworth's design was drawn so as to admit large amounts of light through exceptionally large windows on the first and second floors, many internal windows&mdash;not only on office doors but above door-level, and skylights over huge stairwells.

Course numbers?
Why do we need the course numbers (/codes) in the "Organization" table? Without them (or even with them, for that matter) the information could be much more compactly represented as a list: The table seems like overkill. - dcljr (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * School of Architecture and Planning
 * Architecture
 * Media Arts and Sciences
 * Urban Studies and Planning
 * School of Engineering
 * Aeronautics and Astronautics
 * Biological Engineering
 * Chemical Engineering
 * Civil and Environmental Engineering
 * Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
 * Engineering Systems Division
 * Materials Science and Engineering
 * Mechanical Engineering
 * Nuclear Science and Engineering
 * School of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences
 * Anthropology
 * Comparative Media Studies
 * Economics
 * Foreign Languages and Literatures
 * History
 * Linguistics and Philosophy
 * Literature
 * Music and Theatre Arts
 * Political Science
 * Science, Technology, and Society
 * Writing and Humanistic Studies
 * Alfred P. Sloan School of Management
 * Management
 * School of Science
 * Biology
 * Brain and Cognitive Sciences
 * Chemistry
 * Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences
 * Mathematics
 * Physics
 * Whitaker College of Health Sciences and Technology
 * Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology
 * I've replaced the table by the list above (except I boldened the School names). If someone really wants the course numbers to be in there, just add them to each line in parentheses. Personally, I see no reason for them. - dcljr (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I had included them since I reference the department in the alumni section. Madcoverboy 22:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I apologize for RV rglovejoy's edit, but I did so because in many cases the courses have since changed, thus the degrees they earned are inaccurate. Course IX used to be "General Engineering" rather than "Brain & Cognitive Sciences" and Course XX was once Nutritional or Agricultural Science which is now Biomedical Engineering. The course numbers I used were from the Infinite Connection alumni database, thus (BS IX '53) and (BS IX '98) imply different degrees. The lack of consistency is certainly frustrating and I understand your reason for the edit (that the notation is confusing for a lay-person) - however, we could just add the roman numerals to this Course listing or just remove the degree information altogether.
 * My reason for including the degree was because someone with only a BS, MBA, or PhD from MIT all have very different experiences and ties to MIT. Thus expressing Kofi Annan '72 or whathaveyou is different than expressing Netanyahu '68. 2 years at Sloan vs. 4 years as an undergrad shapes you and your loyalties to the institution differently. However, as I commented earlier, in its current representation, this page only reflects the highest degree awarded rather than all MIT degrees awarded, obviating my previous statement. I welcome input and comments.Madcoverboy 23:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I realize that the facts page cites 34 MIT departments, but I only count 32 at the Departments, Sections, Programs and Course Catalog pages. Computational Biology is allegedly a department and Ocean Engineering is supposedly not a department anymore (merged with Mechanical Engineering). Nevertheless the former is not on the "official" course pages and OE remains. Where are the other 2 departments then? Blame the MIT web admins, but I feel that the wiki should reflect the official site, even if it is inconsistent. Madcoverboy 06:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I went to the facts citation page and I count 32 there, including the Computational Biology and excluding OE. 34 is just wrong. Madcoverboy 07:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

European Institute of Technology
The European Union is planning the foundation of an European Institute of Technology, which is inspired by the MIT. Is it acceptable to link to the EIT article from the MIT article? Pvosta 07:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * First, I wish the EU and both the old and new EIT much success. Second, MIT has inspired many things.  That is not enough of a reason for a link.  Note that of the almost 2500 links to this MIT article, only a handful are in the article.  The MIT article is already overlong, and some are working on shortening it, both to follow the Article Size guideline, and in an effort to get Featured Article status.  Third, you might check if there is a list of technical institutions and/or research universities and add EIT there.  And/or create those categories and populate them. - Lentower 12:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Noted Alumni
I understand that we're trying to condense the length of the article, but I also felt that given other university FAs, the alumni section needed more than a link. I know it reads like a list and it runs the risk of omitting important alumni, but this is obviously a first pass. As I said in the revision comments, I used a ("Highest Degree Awarded" "Roman Course Number" and "Year Highest Degree Awarded") format. There are 3.5 broad categories (politics, industry, university, miscellaneous) which could be expanded to include the litany of researchers, award-winners, computer scientists, etc. Section could use some pictures from linked-pages too. :) Madcoverboy 05:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding the pictures, I was wondering if some enterprising soul (or one with initiative and photoshop skill, unlike myself) could mind stitching together a vertical banner of all the logos formed by MIT alumni so we could use it alongside the section to better illustrate the list. Madcoverboy 07:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

MIT's Architecture and Campus
I removed the sentence that quoted from a source saying that MIT's campus was unsightly and ugly etc. Well it may not be Princeton, but I don't think we should exactly pan it. Added a few lines on Killian Court. I think there should be more about the architectureWolfensberger 00:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I reverted the removal of the Princeton Review ranking because it provides some measure of a counterweight against boosterism. I modified some of your comments to condense them and created an article for Bostworth since the AT&T fact was more appropriate there. I very much enjoyed the juxtaposition or (unintended?) pun in the beginning about the buildings being made of concrete and them cementing reputation. I do hope that edit stays stable, but what in this wild-wiki-world ever does? Madcoverboy 15:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

MIT's Architecture (again)
I see the point about boosterism. But it does - for my taste- start the discussion off on a bitter note. At any rate I took out the bit about deconstructivism and brutalism. Frank Gerhy and Steven Holl are definitely not Deconstructivists (though their work may seem to look that way). I realze the Wikipedia entry on Deconstruction has Gehry in there, but this reflects a weakness of whoever wrote that article. Just because something looks crazy does not mean it is deconstructivism.

I can add a bit about the student center which is an excellent example of Brutalism. That is a good topic and i will try to work on that in the next days.


 * Maybe it's an excellent example of Brutalism, but it's a very poor example of a functional building and as far as I know, since the day it was built, it has been generally disliked by those who have to use it. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Course numbers are indeed Roman numerals
In regard to recent edits: Subjects are presented as Arabic numerals with the "integer" part being the course number. But when course or department as a whole, the course number is presented as a Roman numeral. That is, 18.01 is a subject that is taught within Course XVIII.

Just to make sure this hadn't recently changed, I just double-checked a print copy of Technology Review, March/April 2006, pp. M66-M69, and all of the course news is presented under Roman-numeral designations (e.g. Course XVIII).

Other references confirm this, e.g. "Admission to the Course VI Masters of Engineering Program, dated 2006.

If this has changed it's within the last few months and there ought to be a news item about it somewhere... Dpbsmith (talk) 11:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

See, , and. Everything is listed in numbers not Roman numerals. Just a mere "Course VI" does not mean every department uses Roman numerals. If you can find two or three official sites with all the courses listed in Roman numerals, then you are right. MITBeaverRocks 15:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * See The Tech, [http://www-tech.mit.edu/V126/N25/studyabroad25.html Friday, May 12, 2006.

Volume 126, Number 25]: "Holly C. Greenberg ’08, a Course II student... For example, Courses XIII, XIV, and XVIII... Course X accepts classes taken by students in a program in Madrid which was started this year..." Obviously The Tech thinks that Roman numerals are used. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC) And as noted above Technology Review thinks so, too, because all of the "course notes" use Roman numerals. For all departments. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Anon: Either is acceptable, roman numerals come across as more formal.


 * I contacted the registrar's office and received an email reply from from registrar Mary R. Callahan, as follows:
 * The only 'official' change that I know of occurred in the fall of 2002, when the MIT Bulletin went to Arabic numerals to represent MIT course numbers. According to Stuart Kiang, Director of Reference Publications, this was done for the sake of consistency and applied only to the Bulletin.
 * She says no press release or other notice was issued.
 * In other words, there was a change but it was recent, limited to the Bulletin, and has evidently n ot been adopted by Technology Review or The Tech.
 * In the case of a similar question as to whether UPenn is a legitimate nickname for the University of Pennsylvania, someone found a specific, official style guideline mandating the use of Penn.
 * I am restoring the Roman numerals as being the more familiar usage to most MIT graduates. I don't think they should be changed to Arabic unless someone can produce good evidence and source, similar to the Penn style guide saying that Roman numerals are officially deprecated and that Arabic numerals should be used. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

William Haffner
William Haffner's name appears nowhere in the Lewis Report which is the basis for much of this section. A citation is needed. 140.247.225.140 00:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

How much $$$
How much does it cost to attend this university? Jidan 04:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice article
Is it pointless to add that this article is one of the prettiest I've seen? Oh well... this is really a good looking article.

Indexing links
Hi Wikipedians...just a note I thought it a bit unnecessary to index the MIT pages when a link to the main MIT page is already provided at the bottom. I removed it here, but feel free to reinsert it if necessary. --HappyCamper 06:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)