3 ms·

MIT was established 161 years ago and Harvard was established 386 years ago, both young relative to Cambridge established 813 years ago and Oxford established 9

MIT was established 161 years ago and Harvard was established 386 years ago, both young relative to Cambridge established 813 years ago and Oxford established 926 years ago. The clout of universities will ebb and flow, but I wouldn’t bet on 100+ year institutions losing their ability to attract talent anytime soon.

frognumber 4y ago
MIT lost its ability to attract talent about two decades ago. Talent wants to work their. The endowment is obscene, and they won't lose their ability to afford talent. What they cant do is screen talent. For faculty positions, the competition is extreme; around 1000:1. That lends itself to people who cheat the system. In this case, it means, at the very least, overselling results, baking data, and giving TED-style talks. In many cases, it results in much worse. The extreme competition also drives off many people who just want to nerd. MIT isn't going away anytime soon, but that's why I think the problems may be hard to fix. The culture is broken.
admiral33 4y ago
I agree - network effects predate the internet after all. As long as good universities keep producing talented graduates it will be hard to undermine their reputation. And I don't think ambitious people being driven towards certain universities for clout is a negative. I say this as someone who went to an increasingly recognized yet still underdog state school. Maybe instead of discarding MIT's reputation a nudge in the direction of increasing editorial oversight can suffice. Though sensationalism seems to be a prerequisite for visibility these days
- frognumber 4y ago
  I liked MIT when it was "increasingly recognized yet still underdog" a lot. With ambitions, there are different levels: - An ambitious scientist should be driven to make ambitious discoveries - An ambitious scientist should not be driven to steal credit, fake results, hype, oversell, and defraud MIT's culture changed over the past 20 years. High competition (e.g. 4:1) leads to the type of people who do good work. With insane competition (e.g. 1000:1), the only way to "win" is to cheat.

frognumber 4y ago

MIT lost its ability to attract talent about two decades ago. Talent wants to work their. The endowment is obscene, and they won't lose their ability to afford talent. What they cant do is screen talent. For faculty positions, the competition is extreme; around 1000:1. That lends itself to people who cheat the system. In this case, it means, at the very least, overselling results, baking data, and giving TED-style talks. In many cases, it results in much worse. The extreme competition also drives off many people who just want to nerd. MIT isn't going away anytime soon, but that's why I think the problems may be hard to fix. The culture is broken.

admiral33 4y ago

I agree - network effects predate the internet after all. As long as good universities keep producing talented graduates it will be hard to undermine their reputation. And I don't think ambitious people being driven towards certain universities for clout is a negative. I say this as someone who went to an increasingly recognized yet still underdog state school. Maybe instead of discarding MIT's reputation a nudge in the direction of increasing editorial oversight can suffice. Though sensationalism seems to be a prerequisite for visibility these days

frognumber 4y ago
I liked MIT when it was "increasingly recognized yet still underdog" a lot. With ambitions, there are different levels: - An ambitious scientist should be driven to make ambitious discoveries - An ambitious scientist should not be driven to steal credit, fake results, hype, oversell, and defraud MIT's culture changed over the past 20 years. High competition (e.g. 4:1) leads to the type of people who do good work. With insane competition (e.g. 1000:1), the only way to "win" is to cheat.