Its all about money, honey!!
I came across this article on the web, thanks again to Delip. Its by some MIT professor, Phillip Greenspun. He has wonderfully articulated how Ivy League universities, and in particular MIT decide on the tuition fee waivers. Though the article itself is about 8 years old, some of his suggestions seem to have been implemented in the form of the OCW. And after you finish reading the article, do not forget to look at the MIT graduation 1998 pics. They are interesting!
After reading the article, and also from some other related snippets of information, it is quite evident to me atleast, that if you are ready to pay the full tuition fees, and are financially sound (actually ultra-sound), you can easily walk into the Ivy League, with just a modicum of aptitude.
Final word: Money can take you to Ivy League, but not to IIT!!
posted by Sujeet @ 8:02 AM
6 Comments:
Nice article. But I disagree with your assertion that :
if you are ready to pay the full tuition fees, and are financially sound (actually ultra-sound), you can easily walk into the Ivy League, with just a modicum of aptitude.
The article talks of why tution fees should be removed. There is no comment anywhere on the aptitude of students getting into those universities.
You may be right in your final assessment that enough money could allow you a comfortable stay at MIT, but to say that a person with a modicum of aptitude can walk into MIT - that doesnt follow from the article atleast, and I dont believe is true either.
On the other hand, I am willing to accept that people of good "aptitude" may not be able to study at MIT due to the extremely high fees esp. if a slightly lower ranked university offers much lower fees.
About IIT - well, fees at IIT atleast for undergrad increased by almost 10 times over 4 years around 1997-2000. Made ZOT difference to the kind of people who came in.
Well, we could discuss this forever !
My assessment did not follow from the article alone,per se, as I have written in the post. The assessment was also based not just on the undergrad education but includes education beyond that,like law,management and medicine. In fact, at the undergrad level,about which the article talks, high fees actually act as a deterrant to many deserving students.Hence, the comparison with the IITs, which again are primarily known the world over, for their undergrad education.And as far as IITs are concerned, we all know very well, that even with the fees that we are paying, its still heavily subsidized.
Fair point about IIT education still being highly subsidised. Indeed, the money from student fees may not be enough to pay even electricity bills ! (esp. now that they scrapped the DASA programme :))
If your point is that a law/mgmt./medicine degree at MIT, by the virtue(?) of its high fees, doesnt attract the best people - I find it a bit hard to accept. Prof. Greenspun himself says that tuition fees should be removed only for undergrad education.
However, from your original post, if I am to interpret that admission to a postgrad education in law/mgt/medicine at MIT is easier for cash-rich people, then I am in complete agreement. What I disagree with is the implicit notion in your post that these people may not have the "MIT-level aptitude".
For postgrad education in universities like the MIT or Harvard, the places that ideally should have gone to a deserving chap, goes to a person who does not have the same level of aptitude as the aptitudinally deserving chap, just because the university is willing to take in a guy who is ready to shell out the full term bill.The university fully believes in capitalism and the signaling theory, that I wrote about in one of my earlier posts. That was the import of my post, which I guess got lost in some the rhetorical terms that I used. Add to that, we have seen brilliant guys making it to MIT, so it takes that much longer to digest.
Okay. Your point comes across, even if it does through a maze of terms (I am tempted to compare this maze with the one in Harry Potter and Goblet of Fire which was used for the Triwizard Tournament, but I digress..).
I think we should not confuse money and aptitude. We are in agreement about the undergrad situation, so lets leave that. For postgrad, we agree fees are needed. The question is how much. Let us assume it is quite high. Your point is that a rich guy gets in at the cost of a deserving guy.
If "A" has both money and aptitude; and "B" has same aptitude and no money (I of course mean that he is incapable of paying the high fees - not that he actually has no money :D ), I guess the univ is reasonably justified in admitting A.
Now, if A has aptitude even slightly lower than B, it may still make sense for A to be admitted. To that extent, capitalism in the university can be tolerated.
I am not aware of MIT/Harvard admit procedures, but if they do indeed allow persons with lot of money to get in at the expense of much more "aptitudinally deserving" students, it is to be regrettable. However, I think the situation is that people with money do get in, but never at the expense of more deserving people.
Which brings me back to the DASA program at IIT - perfect analogy. The only real purpose DASA served was to fill the coffers, but it was never at the expense of the JEE candidates.
As long as that is the case, I have no problem with capitalism in universities, and your point abt rich ppl walking into MIT, et al is well taken.
edit to the above comment : the phrase after the bold text should read : it is regrettable.
The error, needless to say, is regretted :))
Post a Comment
<< Home