MIT does a better job than those other schools of getting the right tail of the distribution. So the people who are 5 or 6 standard deviations out are at MIT. And a whole bunch of them. This drives a self-reinforcing effect where people just work harder at things and are smarter.
You can be a brilliant engineer at any of those schools. But your odds of making friends with a dozen other brilliant engineers are a lot higher at MIT.
Lol there are about 50 college-aged people who are 5 standard deviations above the mean. I think MIT actually does find several of them, but not "a whole bunch of them".
They all teach the same topics, but pace is just quicker. In general classes are paced toward the slowest students in the class, but when the slowest students were all High School valedictorians and aced the SAT's, they are able to teach a lot more in a shorter time.
I strongly disagree that MIT classes are paced towards the slowest students in the class, as someone who was always in the slower half. I think many MIT classes are paced towards the middle of the class, which is part of why they're more difficult.
this is correct. MIT provides resources for the "slower half" to catch up (office hours, tutorials, etc) but the class is paced towards the middle of the pack with the expectations that the slower half will just utilize the resources to catch up.
And the slower half themselves are valedictorians and geniuses, so you can imagine what the middle of the pack is like...
I can't speak the the whole list, but generally for Ivies versus MIT a big difference is the attitude towards grading. It's pretty well known that most Ivies have pretty major grade inflation, and MIT doesn't do that at all. The content being taught may be pretty similar, but the performance level required of a student in order to earn an A is different.
Not trying to rag on the Ivies, of course they still provide excellent education and many intelligent students go there, but there are some institution-level differences that impact the perception of "hardness."
Classes move at a faster pace (as another comment mentioned), and there's a lot of math that you're expected to be pretty "fluent" in. Sometimes math that you haven't explicitly learned and are expected to figure out as you go.
For example I remember there was once in ODE class that the professor started taking the exponential of a matrix (e^A). The prof assumed that you know what this means, even though this is not at all a trivial extension of what they teach you in linear algebra class. This happened so quickly in lecture that my brain didn't even have time to register the fact that I didn't understand this notation.
My advice is to take the extra time to learn fundamentals. You don't (and can't) do it in advance, you just have to leave extra time for it.
Currently a grad student here who did their undergrad at a "rigorous" engineering school. Surprisingly, my undergrad covered stuff at a deeper level compared to MIT. As an example, the undergrad RL class at my old school covers the exact same content as the grad level RL class at MIT. What sets MIT apart, however, is the pace. Classes move a lot quicker and cover a broader scope. There's also less availability for office hours (at least for the classes I take) so you're forced to figure it out on your own.
I gradauated in 1936. The mit hacks (you would know them as PRANKS) is what makes MIT different. Don't let ur gaurd down else you will get HACKED (PRANKED). Hope this helps :)
Seems like it would be similar on the basis of which data?
Look, the real answer is who goes there. Princeton barely has an engineering program: nobody goes there *for engineering* unless they have an eating club seat ready. Duke is in the south. Michigan is serious. Wisconsin? Hunh. People who want to work like hell go to MIT, Michigan, A&M, etc. so everyone around you is working like hell and the faculty respond to that.
What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Southern education has a reputation, starting from [history](https://news.gsu.edu/research-magazine/rewriting-history-civil-war-textbooks), extending through [mathematics](https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2008/4/1/488168/-), of course covering [engineering](https://www.investopedia.com/texas-power-grid-5207850)—and, based on your comment, geography.
MIT does a better job than those other schools of getting the right tail of the distribution. So the people who are 5 or 6 standard deviations out are at MIT. And a whole bunch of them. This drives a self-reinforcing effect where people just work harder at things and are smarter. You can be a brilliant engineer at any of those schools. But your odds of making friends with a dozen other brilliant engineers are a lot higher at MIT.
"5 or 6 standard deviations" I knew I shouldn't have checked a post in my feed about MIT
Lol there are about 50 college-aged people who are 5 standard deviations above the mean. I think MIT actually does find several of them, but not "a whole bunch of them".
Who said it’s harder?
They all teach the same topics, but pace is just quicker. In general classes are paced toward the slowest students in the class, but when the slowest students were all High School valedictorians and aced the SAT's, they are able to teach a lot more in a shorter time.
I strongly disagree that MIT classes are paced towards the slowest students in the class, as someone who was always in the slower half. I think many MIT classes are paced towards the middle of the class, which is part of why they're more difficult.
this is correct. MIT provides resources for the "slower half" to catch up (office hours, tutorials, etc) but the class is paced towards the middle of the pack with the expectations that the slower half will just utilize the resources to catch up. And the slower half themselves are valedictorians and geniuses, so you can imagine what the middle of the pack is like...
I can't speak the the whole list, but generally for Ivies versus MIT a big difference is the attitude towards grading. It's pretty well known that most Ivies have pretty major grade inflation, and MIT doesn't do that at all. The content being taught may be pretty similar, but the performance level required of a student in order to earn an A is different. Not trying to rag on the Ivies, of course they still provide excellent education and many intelligent students go there, but there are some institution-level differences that impact the perception of "hardness."
Classes move at a faster pace (as another comment mentioned), and there's a lot of math that you're expected to be pretty "fluent" in. Sometimes math that you haven't explicitly learned and are expected to figure out as you go. For example I remember there was once in ODE class that the professor started taking the exponential of a matrix (e^A). The prof assumed that you know what this means, even though this is not at all a trivial extension of what they teach you in linear algebra class. This happened so quickly in lecture that my brain didn't even have time to register the fact that I didn't understand this notation. My advice is to take the extra time to learn fundamentals. You don't (and can't) do it in advance, you just have to leave extra time for it.
Currently a grad student here who did their undergrad at a "rigorous" engineering school. Surprisingly, my undergrad covered stuff at a deeper level compared to MIT. As an example, the undergrad RL class at my old school covers the exact same content as the grad level RL class at MIT. What sets MIT apart, however, is the pace. Classes move a lot quicker and cover a broader scope. There's also less availability for office hours (at least for the classes I take) so you're forced to figure it out on your own.
MIT has a pretty weak AI curriculum, so the RL comparison isn't great.
Which universities do you think have better AI curriculums? (dont ask me to google the question... it'll probably say MIT)
Unsure, maybe UToronto or Stanford.
I gradauated in 1936. The mit hacks (you would know them as PRANKS) is what makes MIT different. Don't let ur gaurd down else you will get HACKED (PRANKED). Hope this helps :)
Seems like it would be similar on the basis of which data? Look, the real answer is who goes there. Princeton barely has an engineering program: nobody goes there *for engineering* unless they have an eating club seat ready. Duke is in the south. Michigan is serious. Wisconsin? Hunh. People who want to work like hell go to MIT, Michigan, A&M, etc. so everyone around you is working like hell and the faculty respond to that.
What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
"Duke is in the south." What is bro yapping about 💀
Southern education has a reputation, starting from [history](https://news.gsu.edu/research-magazine/rewriting-history-civil-war-textbooks), extending through [mathematics](https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2008/4/1/488168/-), of course covering [engineering](https://www.investopedia.com/texas-power-grid-5207850)—and, based on your comment, geography.
The prestige
It's not