Comment Re:Quite the opposite (Score 1) 179
Just finished my M.Eng in EECS there, and there is quite a bit of difference between MIT (and most "top tier" schools) and the other schools, and its not just in the price tag. If you have ever read some of Feynman's books, he mentions that MIT is a great place, but it tends to be a little self-centered in most respects, and many of the people going there become inured to the idea of MIT as the center of the universe. I just mention this so that you take what I have to say with a grain of salt ... I loved MIT and think that it is the greatest place in the world.
That said, I have had several long discussions about education with several friends, all of whom have been to different schools of varying different "degrees", from Ivy League to Local Midwest No-Name. The 3 biggest differences that I see between MIT and others is the quality of faculty, students, and resources.
Faculty speaks for itself. Professors are doing full time research related to the class that they are teaching and usually only teaching one class. Most professors are also experts in their repective fields, and have scores of undergrad and grad assistants to enable them to develop some great course notes/problem sets/tests (usually).
The quality of MIT's resources outshines those of almost any other university, especially in the EECS arena. What other university has equivalents to LCS (think W3), the AI lab (think Stallman), the Media Lab (think wearable-computing and other wacky antics), and RLE (think radar), just to name a few.
The student population, however, is the single biggest factor that sets MIT apart from the rest. I did well in high school, figuring that I was probably the smartest kid in school (ego alert!). Then I go to MIT, and I am mediocre, surrounded by people who know more, have done more, and are much smarter that I can ever be. This sort of experience is eye-openingly humbling and incredibly wonderful, to be surrounded by people who are at the same level as you and can think on the same tracks, without you having to go and explain what it means for two computers to "talk to each other". I believe that just being around the MIT population for 5 years did more for me than anything else there.
That said, I have had several long discussions about education with several friends, all of whom have been to different schools of varying different "degrees", from Ivy League to Local Midwest No-Name. The 3 biggest differences that I see between MIT and others is the quality of faculty, students, and resources.
Faculty speaks for itself. Professors are doing full time research related to the class that they are teaching and usually only teaching one class. Most professors are also experts in their repective fields, and have scores of undergrad and grad assistants to enable them to develop some great course notes/problem sets/tests (usually).
The quality of MIT's resources outshines those of almost any other university, especially in the EECS arena. What other university has equivalents to LCS (think W3), the AI lab (think Stallman), the Media Lab (think wearable-computing and other wacky antics), and RLE (think radar), just to name a few.
The student population, however, is the single biggest factor that sets MIT apart from the rest. I did well in high school, figuring that I was probably the smartest kid in school (ego alert!). Then I go to MIT, and I am mediocre, surrounded by people who know more, have done more, and are much smarter that I can ever be. This sort of experience is eye-openingly humbling and incredibly wonderful, to be surrounded by people who are at the same level as you and can think on the same tracks, without you having to go and explain what it means for two computers to "talk to each other". I believe that just being around the MIT population for 5 years did more for me than anything else there.
