[1456] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: A new ballgame at MIT
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Wally)
Tue Sep 16 16:37:35 2003
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 15:24:22 -0400
From: Wally <wally@SUB-ZERO.MIT.EDU>
To: MIT-Talk@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <LAW10-OE43TpUaJb8bA000035f9@hotmail.com>
> One thing we can say is this: Starting at around 1997, Marilee Jones
> took over as head of admissions, and Course 15 undergrad enrollment
> starts rising. A couple of years later, Course 15 was, and is, the 2nd
> biggest undergrad department. Why is that?
I'd put a hundred bucks on 'correlation, not causation'. I think the main
cause is Will Hafer. That Hafer. He's made fucking off to 'discover
yourself' fashionable, and ever since then, no one takes engineering
seriously! Except insofar as it keeps yer motorcycle running.
> I posit that Course 15 is so big because Marilee admitted a bunch of
> frosh who were unwilling to take on science/engineering. By going after
> "well-rounded" students, Admissions took in people who are only
> interested in science/engineering only in so far as to get them admitted
> into MIT. Once at MIT, they find out they cannot stomach (or more?)
> engineering courses, so like the mercenary they are, they go into 15,
> which is easy and promises instant payoff. And the Course 2 undergrad
> enrollment shrivels.
'Marilee' doesn't admit students, the admissions staff does. She has
authority, but it's not absolute. I'd wager <$100 that you're identifying
a trend at lots of US universities. Sloan is more prominent now than it
was, partly through their own go-out-and-grab-undergrads efforts. And
Course VI certainly doesn't make any particular effort. Nor does Course
II, that I can recall. But look at Ocean Eng: have their preorientation
and outreach activities helped enrollment? That's where the more telling
stats'll come from, I reckon.
> There are many people who double majors 15 w/ a technical major, and I
> applaud them. 15 is something you should double into, not as your sole
> major.
Well: sez you. I agree. Most everyone else either disagrees or cares not a
whit. I imagine MIT used to care a great deal. I have no idea what's in
the school's best interests in that regard - mainly since there's the
open, nagging question of pedagogy. What is Course XV doing right?
Anything? What about VI and II and X and XVI?
W.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Documentation on the use of the mailing lists mit-talk, all-talk,
mit-news, housing-talk, and the mit-talk Zephyr class is available at:
http://web.mit.edu/institvte/talk/
