[thwayunion]

MIT's openness is a huge wedge issue in the Harvard-MIT culture wars. That sounds like stupid elitist junk, but makes since historically. MIT wasn't always... "MIT". Not too long ago, it was just another college. Its open culture combined with proximity to austere academic/government/private institutions is one of the two reasons that it grew to be the behemoth is it now. The literal openness to the public has long been a huge source of "soft power" for MIT.

(The other reason for MIT's rise being WW2 and the military-industrial-academic complex ofc)

Even with this topic set aside, MIT has been turning into just another Harvard, which is a real shame. MIT alum used to be very proud of the fact that any and all were welcome to participate in many aspects of campus life.

[fsckboy]

the other other reason for MIT's rise was its acceptance of Jewish scientists fleeing Germany in the pre WWII period, while the ivy league schools* still had (anti) Jewish quotas.

also, MIT was not a complete slouch before that, as Harvard proposed absorbing MIT in the early part of the 20th century.

* which weren't technically ivy league yet, that league being found in 1954

[nonrandomstring]

Interesting. My own alma mater UCL was founded on openness to women and Jews and has thrived on that ticket of inclusivity. It was early to the table in admitting overseas students when most UK universities only recruited provincially.

When visiting central London I sometimes feel like a walk around the Gower Street quad, and seem able to mooch about the campus and poke my head into familiar lecture halls - even though it's central London location would seem to make theft/vandalism a threat.

I think a lot of this physical security lockdown nonsense is post-pandemic culture, and obviously the profitability of "security industries"