Anonymous
01/31/2018 14:52
Subject: When did Pitt become this area's safety school? Why no CMU as a top pick?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Alternate theory: There are a lot of Pittsburgh transplants in the DC area. They left in the early 1990s when the economy there was still awful and they couldn't find jobs out of college. But they've maintained connections there and a love of city, so now their kids are considering it. The happy epilogue is the city is now roaring back economically so when those kids graduate, they might be able to stay.
This. Though my parents left in the late 70s to move to DC. But I still have lots of ties to Pittsburgh as other relatives still live there and we go back to visit often. I considered staying after graduating in 2006, but I ended up elsewhere for grad school then didn't make my way back there to live.
Similar story here. DS loved Pitt and also grandma’s meatballs monthly.
My DS is considering Pitt because of the Granddad factor.
Anonymous
01/31/2018 14:27
Subject: Re:When did Pitt become this area's safety school? Why no CMU as a top pick?
Engineers tend not to be hand-wringers so not likely to be endlessly harping on the stats of MIT vs CMU vs Harvey Mudd.
Anonymous
01/31/2018 14:17
Subject: When did Pitt become this area's safety school? Why no CMU as a top pick?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think you don't see people discussing CMU for the same reason you really don't see them discussing MIT. The DCUM crowd doesn't seem to produce hard core elite science types.
+1
The elite science types go to MIT, Stanford, Caltech not CMU, for undergrad.
This is not true. I agree with the original PPs assessment. People don't talk about CMU on DCUM the same way they don't really discuss MIT. It's not really on the radar.
Frankly, I've never been able to understand why MIT isn't discussed here. It is as elite as HYPs. Why don't people obsess over it the way they obsess over them?
Because MIT is too small and too specialized. No other schools to compare with other than CalTech which is another very small school.
ridiculous. there are some many minuscule lacs people discuss here endlessly.
Anonymous
01/31/2018 13:22
Subject: When did Pitt become this area's safety school? Why no CMU as a top pick?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think you don't see people discussing CMU for the same reason you really don't see them discussing MIT. The DCUM crowd doesn't seem to produce hard core elite science types.
+1
The elite science types go to MIT, Stanford, Caltech not CMU, for undergrad.
This is not true. I agree with the original PPs assessment. People don't talk about CMU on DCUM the same way they don't really discuss MIT. It's not really on the radar.
Frankly, I've never been able to understand why MIT isn't discussed here. It is as elite as HYPs. Why don't people obsess over it the way they obsess over them?
Because MIT is too small and too specialized. No other schools to compare with other than CalTech which is another very small school.
Harvard has 22 thousand, while MIT 11 thousand. Only a factor 2 difference.
But Harvard has many similar schools - Y, P, other Ivys and very top tier SLAC. MIT doesn't.
Anonymous
01/31/2018 13:20
Subject: When did Pitt become this area's safety school? Why no CMU as a top pick?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think you don't see people discussing CMU for the same reason you really don't see them discussing MIT. The DCUM crowd doesn't seem to produce hard core elite science types.
+1
The elite science types go to MIT, Stanford, Caltech not CMU, for undergrad.
This is not true. I agree with the original PPs assessment. People don't talk about CMU on DCUM the same way they don't really discuss MIT. It's not really on the radar.
Frankly, I've never been able to understand why MIT isn't discussed here. It is as elite as HYPs. Why don't people obsess over it the way they obsess over them?
Because MIT is too small and too specialized. No other schools to compare with other than CalTech which is another very small school.
Harvard has 22 thousand, while MIT 11 thousand. Only a factor 2 difference.
Anonymous
01/31/2018 13:14
Subject: When did Pitt become this area's safety school? Why no CMU as a top pick?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think you don't see people discussing CMU for the same reason you really don't see them discussing MIT. The DCUM crowd doesn't seem to produce hard core elite science types.
+1
The elite science types go to MIT, Stanford, Caltech not CMU, for undergrad.
This is not true. I agree with the original PPs assessment. People don't talk about CMU on DCUM the same way they don't really discuss MIT. It's not really on the radar.
Frankly, I've never been able to understand why MIT isn't discussed here. It is as elite as HYPs. Why don't people obsess over it the way they obsess over them?
Because MIT is too small and too specialized. No other schools to compare with other than CalTech which is another very small school.
Anonymous
01/31/2018 13:12
Subject: When did Pitt become this area's safety school? Why no CMU as a top pick?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think you don't see people discussing CMU for the same reason you really don't see them discussing MIT. The DCUM crowd doesn't seem to produce hard core elite science types.
+1
The elite science types go to MIT, Stanford, Caltech not CMU, for undergrad.
This is not true. I agree with the original PPs assessment. People don't talk about CMU on DCUM the same way they don't really discuss MIT. It's not really on the radar.
Frankly, I've never been able to understand why MIT isn't discussed here. It is as elite as HYPs. Why don't people obsess over it the way they obsess over them?
They are intimidated and worried their kids couldn't handle it. Not popular with a group of parents that are lawyers and lobbyists.
Anonymous
01/31/2018 13:04
Subject: When did Pitt become this area's safety school? Why no CMU as a top pick?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think you don't see people discussing CMU for the same reason you really don't see them discussing MIT. The DCUM crowd doesn't seem to produce hard core elite science types.
+1
The elite science types go to MIT, Stanford, Caltech not CMU, for undergrad.
This is not true. I agree with the original PPs assessment. People don't talk about CMU on DCUM the same way they don't really discuss MIT. It's not really on the radar.
Frankly, I've never been able to understand why MIT isn't discussed here. It is as elite as HYPs. Why don't people obsess over it the way they obsess over them?
Anonymous
01/31/2018 09:36
Subject: When did Pitt become this area's safety school? Why no CMU as a top pick?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think you don't see people discussing CMU for the same reason you really don't see them discussing MIT. The DCUM crowd doesn't seem to produce hard core elite science types.
+1
The elite science types go to MIT, Stanford, Caltech not CMU, for undergrad.
This is not true. I agree with the original PPs assessment. People don't talk about CMU on DCUM the same way they don't really discuss MIT. It's not really on the radar.
Anonymous
01/31/2018 09:19
Subject: When did Pitt become this area's safety school? Why no CMU as a top pick?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:CMU is a very poor choice for undergrad imo. The campus sucks the city sucks, the school is very one-sided and intense. Many say it is a miserable experience. Most people do not believe that this is what an undergrad education should be like and the CMU name is not strong enough to motivate them to overlook these things. Tons of top kids who want to study engineering and cannot make it to MIT or Stanford go for ivies and then do graduate degrees at engineering-focused schools like CMU and GTech.
How can a school that is known both for IT and Musical Theatre be called one-sided?
CMU does not provide a well-rounded undergrad experience. It is not strong across the board, and students are too siloed in their specific discipline. Musical theater is such a particular niche.
their social sciences are very strong. The only weakness are humanities.
Anonymous
01/31/2018 09:18
Subject: When did Pitt become this area's safety school? Why no CMU as a top pick?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think you don't see people discussing CMU for the same reason you really don't see them discussing MIT. The DCUM crowd doesn't seem to produce hard core elite science types.
+1
The elite science types go to MIT, Stanford, Caltech not CMU, for undergrad.
Well CMU is ranked #3 for computer science behind MIT and Stanford. They are #1 in information technology, and top 10 in 5 other things too. I am not a fan of the school but let’s get real. The school is extremely hard to get into and prestigious. Some people want and will pay for that, especially if the top 5 aren’t biting. There are elite scientist in all of these schools.
Anonymous
01/31/2018 08:49
Subject: When did Pitt become this area's safety school? Why no CMU as a top pick?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:CMU is a very poor choice for undergrad imo. The campus sucks the city sucks, the school is very one-sided and intense. Many say it is a miserable experience. Most people do not believe that this is what an undergrad education should be like and the CMU name is not strong enough to motivate them to overlook these things. Tons of top kids who want to study engineering and cannot make it to MIT or Stanford go for ivies and then do graduate degrees at engineering-focused schools like CMU and GTech.
How can a school that is known both for IT and Musical Theatre be called one-sided?
CMU does not provide a well-rounded undergrad experience. It is not strong across the board, and students are too siloed in their specific discipline. Musical theater is such a particular niche.
Both majors are like that though.
Anonymous
01/31/2018 08:45
Subject: Re:When did Pitt become this area's safety school? Why no CMU as a top pick?
Undergrad engineering is not well-rounded. 4 yrs of required courses with very few electives. CMU isn’t different. Maybe theater is similar.
Anonymous
01/31/2018 08:44
Subject: When did Pitt become this area's safety school? Why no CMU as a top pick?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think you don't see people discussing CMU for the same reason you really don't see them discussing MIT. The DCUM crowd doesn't seem to produce hard core elite science types.
+1
The elite science types go to MIT, Stanford, Caltech not CMU, for undergrad.
Anonymous
01/31/2018 08:42
Subject: When did Pitt become this area's safety school? Why no CMU as a top pick?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:CMU is a very poor choice for undergrad imo. The campus sucks the city sucks, the school is very one-sided and intense. Many say it is a miserable experience. Most people do not believe that this is what an undergrad education should be like and the CMU name is not strong enough to motivate them to overlook these things. Tons of top kids who want to study engineering and cannot make it to MIT or Stanford go for ivies and then do graduate degrees at engineering-focused schools like CMU and GTech.
How can a school that is known both for IT and Musical Theatre be called one-sided?
CMU does not provide a well-rounded undergrad experience. It is not strong across the board, and students are too siloed in their specific discipline. Musical theater is such a particular niche.