Schools similar to MIT (but less impossible)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looking for a school for a student who particularly excels at STEM but also wants a strong academic experience all around. Loves learning, loves a challenge, and possibly wants to go to grad school for academic research so undergrad research opportunities are important. She would love to be around other students who are enthusiastic and passionate about science. So far she has all A's, 1520 PSAT, will be maxed out on math/science courses at her school. Very involved in music oriented extracurriculars and would want to continue these in college for fun. If she could pick the school of her dreams, it would be MIT for sure, but she not have national/international level recognition or research experience. I am hoping to steer her towards schools with a similar "spirit" but which are less selective and more achievable. Any suggestions for schools to focus our search? We will likely be full pay. I think the school community and academic strength would be top priority for her rather than the setting of the school.

Rochester is an excellent choice. Most undergrads do research, it's possible to start your freshman year. Their Cluster system encourages students to pick topics and go more in depth. She could do one cluster in Music.
50%+ of the students are STEM or premed (with a nonSTEM major). And yes, over 50% go onto grad school for advanced degrees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:UVA surpasses MIT in most cases and is tentatively less hard to get into, though in many cases is actually harder to get into for certain majors and when taking into account admissions for particular schools.

WTF??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For a few ideas that aren't like MIT, but which would be excellent for physics and mathematics, look into Williams, Hamilton and Reed.

None of these are anything like MIT. The whole point of MIT is a theory-heavy research-heavy environment for science for social good. Look at research universities with a good campus culture.

A number of LACs offer a theory-heavy education with excellent research opportunities. That research may not be as likely to be published in Nature or Science, but it might be more likely the undergraduate leads the work, which grad schools also care about.

MIT is pretty unique, but OP is looking for good but “less impossible” options, many of which are indeed universities, but many of which are LACs.

There's a lot of distance between MIT and William or MIT and Reed. Like sure there's a strenuous connection one can make, but answers like WPI, Gtech, even Harvey Mudd are quality answers.

Not so much distance in undergrad education for the programs they offer. OP said she was less likely to be interested in engineering.

There's a substantial difference studying physics at Williams and studying physics at Berkeley or MIT. I don't understand how someone can have such an uninformed opinion.
Look at course availability alone: https://physics.williams.edu/programs/courses/
MIT:https://catalog.mit.edu/subjects/8/

There’s a critical mass of variety of courses needed for a great undergraduate education. It is possible to have too few, but that’s not a problem at any of the better LACs. There’s a point of diminishing return. At the undergraduate level, coursework is mostly about mastering a field’s foundation. The more esoteric courses aren’t as significant til the grad level.

Ohio State has more physics courses open to undergrads than Harvey Mudd. That doesn’t make Ohio State a better place for undergrad physics.

For physics, 8 of the top 15 PhD producers by rate are LACs. Berkeley is 38th.

No one is trying to downplay how incredible MIT is. No one is even saying other universities aren’t also great. But the people saying you can’t get a top STEM education at an LAC are simply not well informed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you’re the MIT type, a liberal arts college is not where you wanna spend 4 years.

Says who? Those I know who attended both thought both were very valuable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA surpasses MIT in most cases and is tentatively less hard to get into, though in many cases is actually harder to get into for certain majors and when taking into account admissions for particular schools.

WTF??

+1. What are some of these posters smoking?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:UVA surpasses MIT in most cases and is tentatively less hard to get into, though in many cases is actually harder to get into for certain majors and when taking into account admissions for particular schools.[/quote
roflmfao

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:UVA surpasses MIT in most cases and is tentatively less hard to get into, though in many cases is actually harder to get into for certain majors and when taking into account admissions for particular schools.

Sorry your kid didn't get in to MIT. No need to feel ashamed--only 3.7% of applicants to MIT are admitted.

[Anonymous]

OP back again. Thanks to all posters who have made suggestions. I appreciate having wider range of targets and other reaches. After seeing friends' kids get rejected by Georgia Tech, CMU and JHU and other science oriented reaches, I'm getting really nervous seeing my kid's dream school list. Hopefully these suggestions will be helpful for parents of other sciencey kids as well. We have mostly been focused on research universities but plan on touring a few LACs soon just to gain more familiarity with them. Neither DH nor I attended an LAC so they are a bit of an exotic animal to us, but we wouldn't rule them out. I can see how they would be better for quality of instruction, but I am not sure how the students get research experience when the faculty are primarily teaching.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does STEM mean to this student? More like engineering or more like physics and mathematics?

The OP posted a follow-up to say more like physics and math, not engineering.

Thank you.

Then I'll ask, what level of mathematics will your child have completed prior to high school graduation?

She will take multivariable at her school and perhaps beyond if we can find other options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For a few ideas that aren't like MIT, but which would be excellent for physics and mathematics, look into Williams, Hamilton and Reed.

None of these are anything like MIT. The whole point of MIT is a theory-heavy research-heavy environment for science for social good. Look at research universities with a good campus culture.

A number of LACs offer a theory-heavy education with excellent research opportunities. That research may not be as likely to be published in Nature or Science, but it might be more likely the undergraduate leads the work, which grad schools also care about.

MIT is pretty unique, but OP is looking for good but “less impossible” options, many of which are indeed universities, but many of which are LACs.

There's a lot of distance between MIT and William or MIT and Reed. Like sure there's a strenuous connection one can make, but answers like WPI, Gtech, even Harvey Mudd are quality answers.

NP. If she's more into science than engineering, I disagree. LACs that have a high number of students going into PhD programs make a lot of sense.

I'd also include Middlebury, Grinnel, and Bowdoin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For a few ideas that aren't like MIT, but which would be excellent for physics and mathematics, look into Williams, Hamilton and Reed.

None of these are anything like MIT. The whole point of MIT is a theory-heavy research-heavy environment for science for social good. Look at research universities with a good campus culture.

If a student would like a chance of winning, say, an Apker, I'd argue that any of Williams, Hamilton, or Reed would represent at least the equal of MIT.

because they’re competing against other undergraduate only institutions. They’d get curb stomped by any actual research institution. What, is Pomona like MIT now for having two recent winners? What a ridiculous, idiotic take

The rudest posters here are often the least informed.

In the years when the Apker was awarded without institutional distinction, four LACs produced recipients — Hamilton, Reed, Macalester and Amherst — which represents a proportional over-representation. Moreover, two of the first three Apker recipients in this open era attended liberal arts colleges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Neither DH nor I attended an LAC so they are a bit of an exotic animal to us, but we wouldn't rule them out. I can see how they would be better for quality of instruction, but I am not sure how the students get research experience when the faculty are primarily teaching.

LAC faculty do research, but they prioritize teaching. They don't have grad students to assist with the research, so undergrads get those positions. In the best way, the research can be part of the professors' commitment to undergrad education.

[Anonymous]

Kind of random but I will throw out Stony Brook. It has gotten a ton of donations so it has really moved up in the world and has become the STEM-oriented SUNY school. It has a medical school affiliated with it. Obviously not close to MIT but it is a good school and perhaps you could get some money there as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Neither DH nor I attended an LAC so they are a bit of an exotic animal to us, but we wouldn't rule them out. I can see how they would be better for quality of instruction, but I am not sure how the students get research experience when the faculty are primarily teaching.

LAC faculty do research, but they prioritize teaching. They don't have grad students to assist with the research, so undergrads get those positions. In the best way, the research can be part of the professors' commitment to undergrad education.

Undergrads at LACs can also do summer REUs at larger universities.

I have a science PhD (HYPS undergrad and grad), and many, many of my grad school classmates went to top LACs. It's absurd to suggest that you can't get a quality undergrad STEM education at a top-ranked LAC.

Wesleyan is another school I haven't seen mentioned yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does STEM mean to this student? More like engineering or more like physics and mathematics?

As it says, SETM = Science, Engineering, Technology, Math

STEM is a broad field. Knowing whether the kid wants engineering, for example, can really influence the school because there are schools that have wonderful math and natural sciences that
don’t offer engineering at all.

I didn't want to say it, because I know a lot of kids change their minds in college, but right now she says she wants to major in chemistry. If I had to bet right now where she would end up, I'd probably put my money on either chemistry or physics, because that's what she likes to read about. But I'd feel much more comfortable if the school has strengths in many STEM areas, because what if she takes a course in a different field and falls in love? That's what happened to me junior year!