[blagie]

In 2022, MIT is a cesspool of fraud and corruption. This wasn't the case a quarter-century ago.

The extreme competition seems to be overtaking all of the elites. MIT is the #1 university brand in the world, but it spent most of its integrity and soul to get there.

There's a fine line you need to walk to become a faculty member at elite schools.

You need to lie a little on grant applications to align when you want to do to what will be funded. You need to lie a little bit in publications so they have impact. You need to fight for credit, sometimes on work you didn't do. As these become normalized, winners do these more and more; otherwise, you won't get that faculty job.

The culture slowly trickles down. I think most grad students at MIT are still honest, but not the most successful ones (most of the ones who find faculty jobs are at least a little bit crooked). Second-tier school faculty slots are filled with graduates of first-tier schools.

MIT has a traditional hacking culture which emphasizes breaking rules. This worked well when this involved climbing on rooftops, but it works less well when the endowment is O($100M) per faculty member, and there's money to embezzle through complex corporate schemes and financial games.

Contentions don't exist too much between faculty and admin right now, but they definitely do between students and Institute. MIT grad students are working to unionize, and the Institute, to union-bust.

[fmvab]

Can you provide more context on how MIT spent most of its integrity and soul to build its brand? I went to MIT over a decade ago and I always appreciated how honest, hardworking, and genuinely curious the student body was. Professors always seemed brilliant as well.

[derbOac]

Not to diminish what you wrote, but almost every single bit of it could be said of almost every research-heavy university in the US today. It's academics in general today, not just MIT.

[11101010001100]

> I think most grad students at MIT are still honest, but not the most successful ones (most of the ones who find faculty jobs are at least a little bit crooked).

While this might be true, I suspect the statistics are not that different from the general population.

[blagie]

I don't think so. In my experience, most people are pretty decent and honest.

There's something which extreme competition does which breaks that, both by whom it selects, and by how it changes culture. MIT a quarter-century ago was much more honest than MIT today. Peer institutions -- one stop down -- are also still much more honest, although I suspect that will change in a decade or two.

The same change happened in several of MIT's peer schools.

[blaser-waffle]

Having worked at several F500 multinationals, I can say confidently that, yup, no different from gen pop. They were corrupt as hell.

Big SaaS providers offered us 40k each to get on board with some all-in Cloud offerings. I'd bet my hat some of the offshore IT companies we used were throwing kickbacks to Ops Managers.

Not speculation, either -- there were executives fired for such things. One set up a shell company and was billing it for consulting services to the tune of 400k per year. He got busted and probably faced charges, probably.

[blagie]

FYI: Executives of F500 multinationals are not the "general population."

The competition needed to be an executive at a F500 multinational extreme. There are many good studies on the topic, from "Dictator's Handbook" to "Power." The latter should be read with a grain of salt, but has helpful insights.

Elected politicians -- above some level -- operate under analogous constraints too. If you don't take an election donation in return for political favors, your opponent will.

I think the decline of the integrity of MIT (as for executives and politicians) became inevitable once competition and $$$ reached a certain threshold.

[cardiology-fat]

> MIT is the #1 university brand in the world

Nah. Maybe 15 years ago.

[blagie]

The rankings lag reality by quite a lot. I think MIT probably was the #1 university in the world a couple of decades ago, but wasn't ranked ultra-high then. It is ranked ultra-high today.

There's a #1:

https://www.topuniversities.com/qs-world-university-rankings

[cardiology-fat]

I'm talking more about brand/'hype' in particular. 15 years ago when I was starting my PhD, everyone adored MIT and wanted to be them.

Now I'm faculty at a reasonably good university in Europe, and obviously MIT is a fantastic place and I'd probably give a finger to get a tenured job there. But I think Harvard/Oxford/Princeton/Stanford have slightly eclipsed MIT in pure brand power. Stanford especially gets more of a 'wow!' reaction these days.

[blagie]

MIT's hay day in terms of research was decades ago -- before I got there -- sixties and eighties. The book Hackers by Levy is a good read on MIT Classic. It took a while for the work from there to be recognized outside in other institutions; you can give a 10-20 year window there. In the general public, virtually no one had heard of MIT.

By the late nineties, MIT research was just past its peak. Peer reputation peaked then or a little bit later. The general public was just starting to notice it existed.

In the 2010's, MIT research quality and integrity was in freefall. General public noticed MIT was #1, perhaps a half-century after-the-fact. Peer reputation was just past the peak.

I expect it will take another 10-30 years before the general public notices MIT has declined.

Stanford gets a "Wow" reaction for entrepreneurship more so than research.

I definitely wouldn't give a finger to be at MIT or Stanford. Of the ones you'd mentioned, Princeton, I think I'd be pretty happy at. If I had my druthers, though, I'd pick a school which is on the rise, basically where MIT was in the sixties or eighties. Mostly, I want a place which has a lot of freedom, integrity, and an open, accepting culture. Georgia Tech seems like a decent place right now. Yale would be nice. ASU would be a uniquely good fit. There are a few state schools I like too.

Schools in Europe are a mixed bag. I've considered going to a less-well-known school in one of the poorer countries in Europe, where there are smart people, and where I could buy a home for cash, and have the perfect freedom of being independently wealthy. If you're at MIT or Stanford, you need to do consulting, startups, or similar to have a decent standard of living, and that brings a pile of conflicts-of-interest. Entry level mortgage requires $200k+ in income in either of those housing markets, which is more than junior faculty are paid. Tenured faculty -- including consulting and outside interests -- make a mint.

[cardiology-fat]

It's not that I disagree with you exactly, but I think you're overgeneralising from tech. In my discipline (in the humanities) MIT is still top-notch, though has never quite been on a par with Princeton. Research integrity isn't really an issue, and there's no outside or consulting income to be had, so it's all salary. Housing is complex because rich universities often own property that they let you live in for free.

[blagie]

Hahaha.

The humanities? Like education? Where MIT acquired a bunch of IP through fraud, lies, and sometimes intimidation, bundled it up into edX, and sold it for $800M, with money lining the pockets of well-positioned faculty members?

Or Stanford? With their school of ed? Baking data to support politically-popular causes, and gaining "impact" when fraudulent research is adopted by virtue of reinforcing what teachers want to hear, with the only victims being the students?

Yeah. Please. Do some research and come back another time.

If you want high-integrity ed research, you can look towards ASU, WPI, or many other schools one tier down in brand, and two tiers up in integrity.